Oral
Answers to
Questions

Justice

The Secretary of State was asked—

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

Chris Law: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the effectiveness of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Alison Thewliss: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the effectiveness of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Kit Malthouse: There are no plans to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The principle remains that drugs are dangerous and need to be controlled appropriately.

Chris Law: I am not surprised by the reply we have just heard from the Minister. However, in Germany, the incoming Government have agreed to join Canada and many US states in legalising cannabis, while across Europe drug consumption rooms are operating with positive results. As countries around us move forward, what message does the Minister think it sends to the rest of the world to see the UK stuck in the last century on drugs policy?

Kit Malthouse: I refute the claim that we are stuck in the last century. In fact, we launched a world-beating strategy just last week, if the hon. Gentleman was paying attention, that proposes a three-pronged approach on drugs, which we believe will have some success over the next decade. I understand that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues often push for the legalisation of cannabis, but I point him to the mixed experience of various parts of the world that have done so, not least California, where it is widely agreed to have been a disaster.

Alison Thewliss: I visited a drug consumption room in Geneva, right next to the central station in that city. Has the Minister visited a drug consumption room? It is important to make Government policy on the basis of evidence and what actually works in other countries.

Kit Malthouse: I have not visited a drug consumption room, although I did have a very illuminating meeting with Ruth Dreifuss, the former President of Switzerland who has been promoting the policy, to discuss the issues they have faced in Switzerland and elsewhere. While I  understand that repetition is not uncommon in this place, the hon. Lady will not elicit from me an answer that expands on the ones I have given to her previously.

Jamie Wallis: Foreign-born criminals have long used human rights legislation to avoid deportation to their country of origin. Can my right hon. Friend confirm whether recent announcements to reform human rights will include the introduction of a British Bill of Rights?

Lindsay Hoyle: Sorry, that question is unrelated to Question 1; it relates to Question 2. I call Peter Grant.

Peter Grant: The Minister, as every Minister does these days, describes the strategy announced last week as world-beating. I suggest we maybe wait to see how it works before we make those claims. I also suggest that he also looks at what is actually working in the rest of the world. Can he explain why this world-beating strategy still insists on putting the medical and health needs of drug users in second place at best to treating them as criminals to be ostracised and punished, rather than sick people who desperately need to be helped?

Kit Malthouse: As usual, SNP Members mischaracterise what we are trying to do. The key feature of the strategy is twofold. First, we are ramping up restrictions on supply, building on our success thus far, particularly on dismantling county lines, which will have a direct impact on drug supply in Scotland. The reason we are doing that is that by restricting supply we believe we can create more space for the £780 million we will be spending on therapeutic interventions, particularly with heroin and crack users, to have an impact. Critically, the two have to go together. If we are dealing with a heroin or crack addict, very often they will leave a therapeutic intervention—I am sure hon. Members see this in their own constituencies—and walk straight back out into the hands of a drug dealer. We need to make that less likely if we are going to ensure those therapies stick and have an impact. As far as criminalising addicts is concerned, large numbers of them do commit crime. They commit crime from which there are victims. Those victims deserve to see justice done, too.

Christopher Chope: Will the Minister be supporting my new clause to the Local Government (Disqualification) Bill, which is coming up for debate on 14 January? My new clause would make offences against the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 a ground for disqualification from being able to serve as a local councillor.

Kit Malthouse: It is unusual that the doings of my hon. Friend pass me by in this House, but sadly that amendment has. It is an interesting proposal, but I hope he will give me a moment to consider it before I give him a response.

Reoffending Rates

Stephen Hammond: What progress his Department has made on reducing reoffending rates.

Paul Holmes: What progress his Department has made on reducing reoffending rates.

Dominic Raab: This Government are tackling the drivers of reoffending to keep our communities safer. That includes the investment of £70 million this year to keep prison leavers off the streets and £80 million for substance misuse treatment services.

Stephen Hammond: I thank the Lord Chancellor for that answer. Will he confirm that some of that £70 million will go to schemes that rehabilitate, offering long-term opportunities in both employment and housing, because that is a successful way to keep reoffending rates down?

Dominic Raab: We are investing £183 million in the expansion of electronic monitoring, which includes £90 million to fund and promote innovation, including in respect of drugs and tags. We are also working carefully on prisoner passports, which are all about resettlement, to make sure that we reduce prisoner and offender homelessness, and there is a big push to encourage them to work with local businesses to get them into work.

Paul Holmes: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that education and employment are key drivers in getting reoffending down and allowing communities that are blighted by crime to heal? Will he therefore outline to the House the progress that has been made in the prisons strategy White Paper in this area specifically?

Dominic Raab: I thank my hon. Friend for that, as he is absolutely right: those are two core drivers of reoffending. So in the White Paper we set out plans to deliver a prisoner education service that will focus not only on the big challenges we see with inmates on numeracy and literacy, but on encouraging vocational qualifications—a step up during their course in prison. We will be driving better outcomes on work by implementing dedicated employment advisers in prisons and a digital tool to match prisoners to jobs on release.

Kerry McCarthy: One way of preventing reoffending would be to make sure that appropriate sentences are imposed in the first place, so what is the Minister doing to ensure that pre-sentence reports are available before prisoners are jailed or given alternative community sentences?

Dominic Raab: I do not see these things as binary opposites; we need to see robust punishment and robust deterrence. I am disappointed that Opposition Members voted against the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which would end automatic release at the halfway point. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) wants to vote against stronger sentences for dangerous criminals, he can stand on that record. But in answer to the hon. Lady’s question, let me say that we are looking at all the other drivers: drugs rehabilitation and, in particular, drugs recovery wings in prisons; vocational educational training; and, crucially, providing hope and the chance to get inmates into work, be it during their time in prison or while they are on licence.

Jim Shannon: Like others, I have concerns about what help the Prisons Minister or the Lord Chancellor can give those who have served in the armed forces and fallen to post-traumatic stress disorder or other difficulties. What will be done to help veterans in particular?

Dominic Raab: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on this. A proportion of people are, in effect, mentally unwell and then trip up into prison, and we know that veterans are among them. That is why I have been liaising with the Health Secretary to look at mental health care and provision, in the community and for those who go into prison, to make sure that we can tailor what happens to them during their sentence to try to give them a better chance to get the support to go straight.

Bob Neill: The Lord Chancellor is absolutely right to say that the protection of the public and rehabilitation are not mutually exclusive. Does he agree that one key factor here, as outlined in the White Paper, is early assessment of prisoners when they come into prison to make sure that we pick up issues of mental health, lack of literacy and drug addiction and that we have a proper plan throughout their time in incarceration for release into the community in a much better place than they were before? Is that not the key issue that we need to be looking at?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee is absolutely right; it is important that on early admission into prison we evaluate all the different factors—the level of numeracy and literacy, the level of addiction, whether the offender has a qualification and the mental health issues—to make sure that the offender’s time in prison takes them forward in each of those regards and that we then, with the prisoner passports, link up the support they will get on release. That is the way we will drive down reoffending, give offenders a second chance, if they want to take it, to turn their lives around, and ultimately protect the public.

Anna McMorrin: The Sentencing Council says that most domestic abuse perpetrators will receive a sentence unlikely to reduce reoffending. Coercive and domestic abuse is a hidden pandemic, getting worse every day, and it is the hardest thing in the world to come forward and report it. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Burton (Kate Griffiths) for her courage in pursuing and exposing the horrific case of coercive and domestic abuse by her husband, former MP Andrew Griffiths. It can happen to any one of us. But the justice system is indifferent to the victims it was set up to protect. I spoke to a young woman last week who told me that her experience of the system was worse than the abuse itself. Labour has a plan ready to go to protect and support victims. When will this Government act?

Dominic Raab: First, I associate myself with the hon. Lady’s comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Kate Griffiths) and her experience. She showed incredible courage.
The hon. Lady asked when we started to act. We did that when we came into government—[Interruption.] Can the hon. Lady listen? We have tripled the amount  of support for victims during our tenure. We will invest £150 million this year. On top of that critical support for the independent sexual violence advisers and the independent domestic violence advisers, we have also published a victims law consultation, which, for the first time, will make victims’ experience central to the functioning of the criminal justice system. [Interruption.] I remind the hon. Lady again: triple the amount of funding for victims during our tenure.

Child Sexual Exploitation: Support for Victims

Robbie Moore: What steps his Department is taking to support victims of child sexual exploitation.

Tom Pursglove: Getting the right support at the right time is crucial for all victims, particularly children and young people. The Department has provided £150 million to victim support services this financial year, which includes support for children and young people. We are also consulting on a victims Bill so that we can make tangible improvements for all victims. That will include reviewing what more can be done to strengthen victim advocate roles, including those supporting children and young people; looking at joining up services better across agencies; and reviewing standards, guidance and frameworks.

Robbie Moore: We can provide full justice and protection to victims of child sexual exploitation in Keighley and across the wider Bradford district only if we fully understand the extent of those horrific crimes and, indeed, the complexities of how child grooming actually happens at a local level. The Minister will be well aware that I am calling on Bradford Council to instigate a full, Rotherham-style inquiry. I ask him to join me in my calls for that and to outline how we can support victims better locally.

Tom Pursglove: My hon. Friend is a tireless advocate on behalf of his constituents in raising these most distressing matters. The Government believe that it is right for the authorities in individual towns and cities to commission local inquiries. It is crucial that answers are provided where failings have occurred, and that we work nationally and locally to improve services’ response to this horrendous crime. The Government welcome Bradford’s work to do that through commissioning and disseminating its recent review. The local authority and police must now do everything possible to understand the current threat and ensure that children at risk are safeguarded and offenders prosecuted.
I also just add that, at a national level, the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse continues to investigate public bodies to ensure that they are doing everything that they should to protect children.

Prison and Probation Officers: Recruitment and Retention

Mary Glindon: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the recruitment and retention of prison and probation officers.

Kit Malthouse: Since October 2016, band 3 to 5 prison officer numbers have increased by more than 4,000 from 17,955 to 22,325 full-time equivalents. In the year to March 2021,  we recruited more than 1,000 trainee probation officers and we will recruit a further 1,500 by the end of March next year.

Mary Glindon: The prisons White Paper concedes that attrition rates among prison officers are too high,
“causing an unsustainable level of turnover in the system… contributing to a vicious cycle of staff dissatisfaction and lack of retention.”
With even the Prison Service’s new retention framework conceding that low wages are key driver of attrition, when will the Minister stand up for both prison officers and probation officers and give them the proper pay rise the Government’s own experts recommend?

Kit Malthouse: We do recognise that attrition among prison officers is an issue, which is why we have put in place retention toolkits in prisons, providing governors with the support and tools that they need for employee retention. As far as pay is concerned, the hon. Lady knows that the economic ravages of the pandemic meant that there did need to be a pause in pay, but now that the Department has received a three-year spending settlement, it means that we can commence more coherent conversations with unions and others about what pay might look like in the years to come.

Philip Hollobone: I welcome the Government’s plans to recruit 5,000 new prison officers, but recruitment of prison officers and their retention would be made easier if the number of assaults in prison were to come down. In the 12 months to June, there were 7,612 assaults on prison officers, one third of which were categorised as serious. What is being done to prosecute and extend the sentences of each and every convict who assaults a prison officer?

Kit Malthouse: Obviously the issue of assaults against our staff in all its forms is one that we take extremely seriously. My hon. Friend is quite right that we hope and expect that prison governors work closely with their local police forces to ensure that any crimes that are committed against prison staff are appropriately pursued and prosecuted, and that sentences are handed out where appropriate. He will know though that much of the violence in prisons is driven by drugs, and I hope he will recognise and welcome the work that we are doing as part of the prevention approach to reduce drug consumption and therefore abuse within the secure estate.

Youth Custody Estate: Safety

Emma Lewell-Buck: What steps he is taking to maintain safety across the youth custody estate.

Kit Malthouse: The number of children and young people in custody is at a historically low level, falling from around 2,600 in 2008-09 to 515 at the end of October 2021. Although welcome, this has resulted in a concentrated cohort of children with particularly complex needs. Fifty-five per cent. of children in custody last year had been sentenced for violent offences. We are clear that levels of violence within the youth estate are too high, which is why we are taking a number of measures to reduce it.

Emma Lewell-Buck: I thank the Minister for that answer, but the reality is that youth offenders institutions and secure training centres are not safe places for children. Two have closed after children there suffered significant harm. At the two remaining institutions, violent assault on children has reached 70%, resulting in admissions to accident and emergency. Children are locked in their dilapidated cells for up to 22 hours per day. Ofsted described one institution as barely meeting
“minimum standards of human decency”.
This is state-supported and state-sanctioned child abuse. Why has he not put a stop to it yet?

Kit Malthouse: We do acknowledge the problems within the secure estate, although I hope the hon. Lady will also acknowledge the difficulties faced in handling the remaining cohort of young people. We have put in place steps to try to improve the situation—for example, allocating a member of staff to every child to support them with weekly therapeutic interventions. I know that, as one of her first acts on getting the job as Prisons Minister, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), engaged with a number of providers in the secure institutions to outline to them that their performance was not acceptable.

Short Prison Sentences for Women

Chris Evans: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of short prison sentences for women.

James Cartlidge: We want fewer women serving short sentences in custody and more managed in the community. We welcome the fact that, in the decade between 2010 and 2020, the female prison population has decreased by 21%. We have also seen a 32% fall in sentences of less than 12 months in the five years since 2016.

Chris Evans: I raised this issue four years ago in Westminster Hall with one of the Minister’s predecessors. Short prison sentences for women have a huge impact on society. Children of women offenders are more likely to be in care. Women are more likely to be victims of domestic violence. When they leave the prison gate, they are locked in the same cycle that brought them there. Will the Minister now launch an urgent review of the way that women are treated in the justice system?

James Cartlidge: The hon. Gentleman speaks with great passion on this matter and I do understand where he is coming from, but that is precisely why we have put in place £46 million of wraparound support over three years for women leaving prison or serving community sentences, to address some of the root causes, such as accommodation, substance misuse, education, training and employment, financial management and family relationships.

Alex Cunningham: An estimated 17,000 children are affected by maternal imprisonment every year, yet the sentencing guidelines are designed to ensure that judges and magistrates consider sole or primary carer status as a mitigating factor, and research by Crest Advisory suggests that awareness and application  of these guidelines is low. We recognise that the number of women in prison has fallen in recent times, but with the majority of women serving short sentences for non-violent offences, what will the Minister do to cut these numbers even more by ensuring that the rights of the child are explicitly considered in every case where a primary carer is sentenced to custody?

James Cartlidge: First, may I put on record that I am sad that the hon. Gentleman is standing down at the next general election? He has been very constructive in our engagements to date on these important matters.
The care of children and other dependants and the impact of the loss of a parent or carer are well-established mitigating factors in sentencing. Sentencing guidelines issued by the independent Sentencing Council include as a specific mitigating factor being the
“sole or primary carer for dependent relatives”
and are clear that the court can consider the effect of the sentence on the health of the offender and the unborn child. The case law in this area, particularly R v. Petherick, makes clear that the court must perform a balancing exercise between the legitimate aims to be served by sentencing and the effect the sentence has on the family life of others, especially children.

Protections for Shop Workers

Robert Halfon: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on improving protections for shop workers against violence and abuse.

James Cartlidge: Everyone has the right to feel safe at work and the Government share the concern that reports of abuse and assaults against retail workers continue to increase. The Government have therefore tabled an amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill which will place in statute an aggravating factor based on that currently used by the courts and set out in sentencing guidelines. This will apply where an assault offence is committed against those providing a public service, performing a public duty or providing a service to the public. It will reinforce in statute the seriousness with which the court should treat these offences and will send a strong message to the public that assaults of this kind on retail workers are totally unacceptable.

Robert Halfon: I recently visited hard-working shop workers in the Co-op in the ward of Bush Fair in my constituency of Harlow. They have faced abuse, intimidation and often assault, and other shop workers I have met in other supermarkets face the same experiences; that is unacceptable. They have asked me if they can get the same protection as NHS workers are now rightly given. Given that shop workers provided an important public service during covid, does the Minister agree it is important to do that?

James Cartlidge: My right hon. Friend is a brilliant champion of his constituency. My message to those shop workers is that they may have received abuse from a tiny minority, but the overwhelming majority in the country think they are heroes. I am sure that every single MP thinks our retail workers are heroes; we know  the important job they do, and to underline that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with the Home Secretary and the Attorney General will be meeting senior representatives of the retail sector today to talk about this very subject. We are backing them in spirit and we are backing them in law.

Afzal Khan: No one deserves to work in fear of violence and abuse, but this is the daily reality of many shop workers. These same workers will now face an increased risk of violence and abuse as they enforce new Government rules on mask-wearing and social distancing. Scottish Labour has led the charge in legislating to protect retail workers in Scotland by instituting a new specific offence for attacks on shop workers. Will the Minister now commit to doing the same in England and Wales so there is equity across the country and ensure that it is backed by the necessary resources to charge and convict offenders?

James Cartlidge: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place, as I did in the Committee considering the statutory instrument earlier, which went through very quickly with his co-operation, for which I am grateful.
On the reforms, it is not just about the change to statute that we will put in place by amending the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, important though that is. I emphasise that such reform has been strongly supported by the sector—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, the British Retail Consortium and others—but it is not just about the law: we are also putting in place the necessary mechanisms to encourage such crimes to be reported, regaining confidence in the police and criminal justice system by bringing the perpetrators to justice, and looking at the root causes of abuse and violence such as drug and alcohol addiction.

Rape Cases: Conviction and Prosecution Rates

Wera Hobhouse: What steps he is taking to improve conviction and prosecution rates for cases of rape.

James Cartlidge: In June we published the interim rape review report and action plan, which sets out plans to significantly improve the way the criminal justice system responds to rape. We are expanding pre-recorded cross-examination under section 28 for victims of rape and sexual violence, rolling out a new investigatory model known as Operation Soteria and introducing a single source of 24/7 support for victims of rape and sexual violence.

Wera Hobhouse: According to a recent report from the Victims Commissioner, just 1% of rape cases made it to trial. The Minister is telling me that these new measures are trying to improve that record. However, many rape victims recorded that their sexual history and mental health records were “pulled apart”, so will he commit to a radical reform of Crown Prosecution Service governance as called for by the End Violence Against Women Coalition to make sure that victims of rape are not treated as suspects?

James Cartlidge: The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. Given the location of her constituency she will be aware that the main pilot we will be holding for Operation Soteria is with Avon and Somerset police. Let me explain  to the House the importance of this pilot. Instead of the usual single officer investigating allegations of rape, we will instead have two officers, one of whom will have primary responsibility for liaising with the victim. A key part of that is to avoid the attrition whereby those who have been victims drop out and lose confidence in the system. We want to restore confidence in the system and show the whole country that we have a joined-up approach to tackle the root causes and improve investigation of all rape cases.

Kate Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend think it is right that victims of rape and domestic abuse should have to pay child contact costs to maintain their abuser’s contact with their child?

James Cartlidge: Let me first add my comments to those of the Secretary of State in terms of the experience of my hon. Friend. She has been incredibly courageous. I am speaking on behalf of the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who I will ask to write to my hon. Friend on that specific point. I do not have an immediate answer to hand but it does sound an important issue and she is right to raise it.

Ellie Reeves: I, too, place on record the courage that the hon. Member for Burton (Kate Griffiths) has shown.
The first rape review scorecard published last week made for pitiful reading. Just 0.6% of adult rape cases reported to police resulted in a charge. It takes three times as long for rape cases to get through the justice system compared with other crimes. Victims are being told that they are lucky if they get justice within three years. While we welcome the roll-out of section 28, Labour was calling for this back in March. It is not good enough. The Government have apologised and admitted that they have failed, but it has been almost three years since the rape review was commissioned. How much longer will survivors have to wait for justice?

James Cartlidge: I am glad the hon. Lady raises the issue of the rape scorecards. While it is obviously disappointing that key 2020-21 data show that performance is consistently lower than the baseline in the priority areas, it is important to note that these metrics reflect the period before the rape review was published and the action plan was implemented. But we have a choice, and it is a really important one. We can spend our time using the scorecards to pick out individual statistics for political point-scoring or we can take a joined-up collaborative approach to recognise that the whole reason for bringing forward the scorecards is to shine light on what exactly is happening out there in the system, focus on where the problems are, and work with the CPS, the police, victims and victims’ groups and all the key stakeholders to improve the whole system. That is the important thing to do. The whole point is that by bringing these figures into daylight we will improve the system.

Offenders in Prison: Numeracy and Literacy

Steven Baker: What steps he is taking to improve the numeracy and literacy rates of offenders in prison.

Kit Malthouse: We are working to deliver a transformed prison education service that will improve numeracy and literacy of all prisoners. Prisoners will be assessed on entry and a personal learning plan will be created to monitor and track progress against starting points and resettlement goals. This will include learning in workshops, kitchens and sports activities.

Steven Baker: I am glad to hear it. Should core skills not always be part of the prison regime for everybody who needs them? Will the Minister continue to take steps to make sure that people’s employability is enhanced by their stay in prison?

Kit Malthouse: My hon. Friend is exactly right. Education is very often the solution to so many of society’s problems. It is a stepping stone towards employment, which, in itself, reduces reoffending very significantly. He will be pleased to know that as part of our plans we will establish a literacy innovation scheme to incentivise new providers to work with us to deliver these kinds of improvement programmes. We will also introduce specific measures of progress to track how successful each prison is at improving prisoners’ English and maths, with governors held to account for poor performance. We agree with my hon. Friend that these basic building blocks of education are key to future success.

Gregory Campbell: The reduction in reoffending rates is marked where the furtherance of numeracy and literacy skills is ongoing in prison, such as in my constituency in Magilligan prison. Will the Minister, in any discussions that he has with the relevant devolved Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, re-emphasise the need for support for prisons that offer such facilities?

Kit Malthouse: This is obviously an issue that affects all the home nations, and I will be more than happy to work collaboratively with counterparts across the whole of the United Kingdom, as we do on so many issues with great success.

Child Cruelty: Sentencing

Simon Jupp: What steps his Department is taking to strengthen sentencing for child cruelty.

Dominic Raab: Child cruelty requires the strongest response possible from our justice system, and we will ensure that our sentencing powers are the most robust to protect the most vulnerable.

Simon Jupp: The harrowing case of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes makes it clear that child protection must be at the heart of our sentencing policy. What steps will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that child killers are never released from prison?

Dominic Raab: I thank my hon. Friend and totally agree with him about the appalling case of little Arthur. He is right, and in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, child murder will be where there is premeditation, and will carry a whole-life order as its starting point. I hope that all hon. Members across the  House will join us in supporting that measure. May I also mention Tony’s law, which we are introducing to increase the penalties for causing death and causing serious injury from child cruelty.

Offenders: Illegal Drug Addiction

Simon Baynes: What plans his Department has to support offenders to end an illegal drug addiction.

Kit Malthouse: Our landmark cross-Government drugs strategy sets out an ambitious long-term vision and includes £780 million of additional investment in treatment and recovery—the largest ever single increase. This will increase and improve treatment services, including providing 950 additional drug and alcohol criminal justice workers. The specialist drug and alcohol workers will give the police, courts and probation the facilities that they need to assess offenders and give sentencers confidence that they can make greater use of community sentences, because they will know that the treatment will be available.

Simon Baynes: The police in Clwyd South and Wrexham deserve great credit for their work in breaking up county lines in north Wales. Will the Minister please provide more information about the other main aspect of the Prime Minister’s 10-year drug strategy, the £780 million devoted to new approaches to treatments, and how that will be put into effect in Clwyd South and elsewhere in the UK?

Kit Malthouse: I am pleased that my hon. Friend is seeing the impact in his constituency of the remarkable work that his police force have been doing, mainly with Merseyside police, who are the chief exporter to his part of the world of that appalling practice of county lines. We have indeed been remarkably successful in driving the numbers down, but if we are to make that a permanent reduction we need to reduce the demand for those drugs, particularly from heroin and crack addicts. So we will be spending significant amounts of money, as he outlined, on treating their addiction, as well as making sure that they face the consequences of their crimes. That money will be channelled through local authorities. It will take time for them to rebuild and retrain the people required to deliver those services, but I am confident that over the next 10 years we will make a significant difference.

Road Traffic Offences: Sentencing Guidelines

Kim Leadbeater: What steps he is taking to review the sentencing guidelines for people convicted of road traffic offences.

James Cartlidge: The Government take road safety very seriously and I commend the hon. Lady for her campaign to tackle bad driving and improve road safety through, I believe, a parliamentary petition. I want to reassure her that this Government want to see safer roads for all users. That is why, in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, we are increasing from 14 years to life imprisonment the maximum penalties for causing death by dangerous driving and for causing  death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs. As for sentencing guidelines, these are produced by the Sentencing Council, which is independent of Parliament and Government.

Kim Leadbeater: I welcome that response. Road safety is a huge issue for people in Batley and Spen, so I have launched a petition to the House calling for additional support, resources and funding. I also recently attended a local memorial service for victims of road traffic incidents. Does the Minister agree that as part of the review into road traffic offences, we must put victims and their support at the heart of any strategy?

James Cartlidge: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I congratulate her on championing those issues. Many hon. Members raise their harrowing cases of serious road traffic incidents at Justice questions. In addition to the increase from 14 years to life for the offences I referred to, in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, we are also creating a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving. In Government amendments, we will increase from two years to five years the minimum period of disqualification from driving for offenders convicted of causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs. That sends a strong signal that we want to put victims first, which is why we are bringing forward those changes.

Court Cases Backlog

Sheryll Murray: What steps his Department is taking to reduce the backlog of cases in the court system.

Andrew Gwynne: What estimate he has made of the length of time required to clear the backlog of Crown court cases resulting from the covid-19 outbreak.

James Cartlidge: We are already seeing the results of our efforts to tackle the impact of the pandemic on our justice system. Outstanding cases in magistrates courts are falling and are close to recovering to pre-pandemic levels. In the Crown court, the backlog is stabilising. The spending review provides an extra £477 million for the criminal justice system, which will allow us to reduce Crown court backlogs caused by the pandemic from about 60,000 today to an estimated 53,000 by March 2025.

Sheryll Murray: What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that evidence is not compromised by the passage of time if there is a delay?

James Cartlidge: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Since 2000, outstanding cases in the Crown court have never been below 30,000, so it is inherent in the criminal justice system that some cases take time. It is important that we consider how to preserve evidence and section 28 is a key part of that. Since November 2020, vulnerable witnesses have had the option to pre-record cross-examination evidence in advance of a trial. In September, we extended the pilot to allow intimidated witnesses to pre-record their cross-examination evidence  to a further four Crown courts. We recently set out that we want to go much further and roll it out to all Crown courts.

Andrew Gwynne: Reducing the Crown court backlog to 53,000 still does not take it back to pre-pandemic levels. We cannot just blame covid for the backlog, because in the year before the pandemic, it grew by 23%. Does the Minister regret the Ministry of Justice’s decision to slash sitting days in 2019?

James Cartlidge: The key point is that we have lifted and removed the limit on sitting days in the Crown court for the moment. In February 2010, the last comparable full month when the Labour party was in power, the backlog in the Crown court was about 48,000. It was 40,000 in the month before we went into the first full lockdown. As anyone in the court system knows—our professionals and our judiciary—the pandemic has had a huge impact.
We are confident that we have a wide package of positive steps that we are bringing forward, including the funding that I just announced plus the steps in the Judicial Review and Courts Bill that will see more cases moved from Crown court to magistrates court. Perhaps with a new shadow spokesman—I welcome him to his position—the Opposition will finally accept the importance of those measures and join us in supporting the Bill on Third Reading.

Violence Against Women and Girls

Gill Furniss: What steps his Department is taking to tackle violence against women and girls.

Laura Trott: What steps he is taking to protect women and girls from violent and sexual offenders.

Tom Pursglove: We have introduced legislation to tackle crimes including stalking, forced marriage and female genital mutilation in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will also introduce measures to crack down on serious violent and sexual offenders, including by ensuring that the most serious sexual and violent offenders spend longer in prison; to reform pre-charge bail to better protect vulnerable victims and witnesses; and to enable positive obligations to be imposed on those who pose a risk of sexual harm through sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders. The victims Bill consultation has also launched, which will ensure that victims feel properly supported.

Gill Furniss: Since Sarah Everard was murdered, at least 104 more women have been killed by men. That endemic violence against women must be met with the national urgency that it deserves. Will the Minister take the opportunity to show that he is serious about the issue by committing today to classing misogyny as a hate crime?

Tom Pursglove: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, who raises this very important issue for all Members of this House. As she would expect, this Government take  incredibly seriously the issue of violence against women and girls, and all our thoughts are with the families of those affected. Of course, I welcome the measures that we are taking on sentencing that I set out in my earlier answer. On misogyny specifically, we are grateful to the Law Commission for the detailed consideration it has given to its review of hate crime laws. We are of course giving that proper consideration, and we will respond as soon as we can.

Laura Trott: Can the Minister assure me and the women and girls of Sevenoaks and Swanley that funding for Kent’s Nightingale court will continue past March next year? Kent’s Crown court case load stands at 93% above pre-pandemic levels, and we know that sexual violence crimes are most likely to be dropped due to delays. We urgently need this court to continue.

Tom Pursglove: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a very passionate advocate for her constituents on these matters. It is worth pointing out that more than £1 billion has been allocated to boost capacity and accelerate recovery from the pandemic in courts and tribunals, and we have been able to reopen more of our existing court estate. The Nightingale courts provide additional capacity for the Crown court either directly or by hosting other work, which makes space for jury trials on the existing estate. These temporary courts supported our recovery, and that is why we extended their use until the end of March 2022. Decisions on future spending will be subject to ongoing spending review allocation discussions, but her point is very much heard.

Topical Questions

Debbie Abrahams: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Dominic Raab: Over the last month, I have visited HMP Isis with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and the South Essex Rape and Incest Crisis Centre. We have launched a White Paper on our prisons strategy and a consultation on a new victims law. I have also met Lissie Harper, and I have announced Harper’s law to bring in mandatory life sentences for those who unlawfully kill emergency workers in the course of their duty.

Debbie Abrahams: The Justice Secretary’s book “The Assault on Liberty” attacks the Human Rights Act 1998 for having “opened the door” to challenges against the Government, so in his drive to amend the Human Rights Act, which rights does he want to stop—rights against torture, rights against medical experimentation on British military personnel or rights preventing discrimination against disabled people in our social security system?

Dominic Raab: I shall be making a statement to the House on our plans for reform of the Human Rights Act and its replacement with a Bill of Rights shortly. I am sure the hon. Member will listen to that and contribute.

Rob Roberts: In 1976, Janet Commins was killed in Flint in my constituency. The wrong person was initially convicted and served a significant prison sentence. In 2016, DNA evidence came to light  that finally led to the conviction of Stephen Hough for her death, but on a plea agreement from murder down to manslaughter, for which he received a 12-year sentence. He is due out under the 50% rule in 2023, and Janet’s family are rightly concerned. Can my right hon. Friend confirm what options may be available to stop an early release and ensure that her violent killer is not let back on to Delyn’s streets?

Kit Malthouse: I do understand the concerns of the hon. Gentleman and obviously of the victim’s family. It was a dreadful crime, and I am obviously pleased, although it took some time, that the right person was put behind bars for it. As he will know, release at the halfway point is automatic. However, I am happy to write to him to outline what steps will be put in place to manage this individual in the community.

Steve Reed: The Government have closed nearly 300 courts since 2010. One of them was Runcorn magistrates court, and two weeks ago the police found criminals using it as a cannabis farm. While 60,000 cases are still waiting to be heard because of a lack of court capacity, can the Secretary of State tell us how many other former courts are now in the hands of criminals, and does he regret that, under the Conservatives, courts that used to hand out justice now hand out spliffs?

Dominic Raab: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. I look forward to working with him, where we can, constructively and usefully. However, if the Labour party wants to start suggesting that it is tough on crime, it needs to deal with its voting on police numbers and the mess that it has made of voting on tougher sentences. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have trebled funding for victim support.
In relation to the courts backlog, as part of the spending review we are investing £477 million in the criminal justice system over the next three years. We have extended the Nightingale courts and removed the limit on the number of days for which the Crown court can sit this year. We are also using the cloud video platform, which enables 13,000 cases to be heard each year; this is an important lesson from the pandemic.

Steve Reed: I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s kind words, but I regret that he did not seem to quite answer the question, so let us see if we can do better with this one. BBC Radio 4’s “You and Yours” programme has exposed serious fraud relating to lasting power of attorney. A criminal was granted full control over a member of the public’s home and finances, and tried to sell her home without her knowledge. The fraudster was granted lasting power of attorney by the Office of the Public Guardian, after filling in an official form using fake names and signatures. Astoundingly, the Government do not require the Office of the Public Guardian to carry out basic identity checks on people applying for lasting power of attorney—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We have to get this right. Topicals questions, by nature, mean short answers and questions. Both of you are taking the time of Back Benchers. If you really want to ask a question, do it early when there is more time. Please do not use up Back Benchers’ time.

Dominic Raab: The hon. Gentleman actually raises an important point. We are reforming the system. If he writes to me about the specific facts of that case, I would be happy to respond.

Lee Anderson: Now then, for far too long foreign dangerous criminals have used the Human Rights Act to avoid deportation. Unlike the Labour party, the vast majority of Ashfield residents want to see dangerous foreign criminals deported as soon as possible. Will my right hon. Friend please advise us on what plans he has to put the rights of UK residents first and those of foreign criminals second?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend talks a lot of common sense, as ever. I will be saying something shortly about our plans to reform human rights. One thing that we can do is to avoid that kind of abuse of the system, on top of the efforts that the Home Secretary is making; since January 2019, we have removed close to 10,000 foreign national offenders, and the early removal scheme in the Nationality and Borders Bill will allow foreign national offenders to be removed earlier.

Brendan O'Hara: Last week, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) steadfastly refused to confirm that the UK would remain in the European convention on human rights. This morning, we read that the UK will do so. Can the Secretary of State confirm that we will remain a signatory and will continue to respect the provisions of the ECHR in full?

Dominic Raab: I have already made it clear before this House that we plan to stay, and will stay, a state party to the European convention.

Brendan O'Hara: The former Justice Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland), warned that any attempt to alter the Human Rights Act would make the UK less secure. Yesterday, GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 warned that changing the Human Rights Act would make it more difficult to fight terrorism. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of what they have said? As he launches his consultation today, will he commit himself to taking very seriously what senior figures in our security services have said?

Dominic Raab: I am not going to respond to claims or anonymous reports in the papers about what the security services may or may not say, but I am absolutely clear that the reforms that we will take will strengthen our protection in a whole range of areas that have been undermined by the Human Rights Act.

Stephen Crabb: The Justice Secretary is absolutely correct in his determination to drive up the employment rates of ex-offenders. Does he agree that today’s unemployment figures, which show a further fall in unemployment and record numbers of job vacancies, underline the scale of the opportunity that we have to get many more prisoners into a job from day one, which is good for the economy, good for business and good for the whole of society?

Dominic Raab: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will have seen in our prison strategy White Paper plans to roll out more employment boards, which link prisons to local businesses and industries in their communities. I hosted an employers summit to encourage employers to come forward and ensure that the prisons are better linked up. We are also expanding the new futures network, which is a dedicated part of the prison service that will support businesses to partner local prisons.

Bill Esterson: It is no good blaming covid. The Crown court backlog was 41,000 before the pandemic, and the wholly inadequate announcement that the Justice Secretary gave a moment or two ago means that it will be 53,000 after the pandemic. When will the Secretary of State admit that the Government’s approach is simply nowhere near that which victims of crime have every right to expect from their Government?

Dominic Raab: I just say to the hon. Gentleman that, as has already been pointed out, the backlog was lower before we went into the pandemic than that left behind by the last Labour Government. However, we are not for a moment complacent. That is why we have invested the money and we secured the money at the spending review, and it is why we have the Crown Nightingale courts and we have removed the limit on the number of days they can sit each year. I regularly consult the senior judiciary about what more we can do. Of course, technology—in particular the cloud video platform—can enable more than 13,000 cases to be heard virtually every week.

Richard Holden: Large numbers of my North West Durham constituents work at HMP Frankland, HMP Low Newton, HMP Durham and the young offenders institution at Deerbolt. One issue that they face is prisoners on drugs and psychoactive substances assaulting members of staff. Will the Minister outline what measures the Government are taking to tackle this scourge?

Kit Malthouse: My hon. Friend’s regard for his constituents who work in the secure estate is very welcome. As he will know from the prisons strategy White Paper, we are taking a zero-tolerance approach to drugs, we will be spending about £100 million, and I hope he will have seen that we recently rolled out 74 X-ray body scanners, which have resulted in more than 10,000 positive scans. All of that will reduce the amount of drugs, and therefore violence, in prisons.

Jonathan Edwards: What consideration has the Secretary of State given to the need for a specific offence or amended sentencing guidelines for those who desecrate or conceal a murdered body, to reflect the extra suffering faced by bereaved families?

Dominic Raab: If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me about that and make the case—I do not know whether his question relates to a particular constituency case or a more general concern—I will be very happy to look at it and make sure that we engage with him further on it.

Jerome Mayhew: The brilliant news on unemployment rates means that businesses in Broadland are crying out for staff. Bernard Matthews has been working with HMP Norwich to provide jobs for ex-offenders immediately on their release, and it tells me that there have been great results from that. Other local businesses have told me that they want to do the same, so what can the Government do to encourage such practices?

Kit Malthouse: At last, a Christmas story to warm the heart. I am sure that all those tucking into their Bernard Matthews turkey this Christmas will not only find it delicious and a celebration of their family, but recognise that they are playing their part in a better future for all those individuals who are working with Bernard Matthews, which is to be congratulated on its work. My hon. Friend is quite right that there is an enormous amount that can be done with the private sector to help get ex-offenders back on to the straight and narrow. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently held a summit with employers to do exactly that, and we will be building a network of business partnerships across the country where businesses and prison governors can sit down together and talk about how to get ex-offenders into employment in exactly the way that Bernard Matthews has done with remarkable success.

Sarah Champion: If we are to get prosecutions of child abusers, we need the support of victims and survivors, so I am really angry that this Government have cut £500,000 from children at risk of child sexual exploitation. What is the Minister doing to make sure, through the forthcoming victims Bill, that the resources are in place to help those at risk?

Tom Pursglove: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, with whom I have worked closely on other matters that the House is considering at the moment. The Government continue to be a global leader in tackling child sexual exploitation and abuse. The tackling child sexual abuse strategy that we launched is the first of its kind and very much cutting edge. I would be happy to have a conversation with her, and I encourage her to make her views known as part of the victims Bill consultation.

Jamie Wallis: Foreign-born criminals have long used human rights legislation to avoid deportation to their country of origin. Can my right hon. Friend confirm whether plans to reform human rights laws will include the introduction of a British Bill of Rights?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is right about the problem that he has diagnosed, and in the not-too-distant future I shall make a statement about our plans for reform.

Alison Thewliss: The Minister confirmed earlier that he had not visited a drug consumption room in any of the European countries where they have been operating for years. Will he come instead to my constituency to see where people are injecting—on waste ground, in bin sheds and in lanes away from Christmas shoppers—so that he can see what the alternative is under his plans?

Kit Malthouse: I am always more than happy to visit Members’ constituencies, as the hon. Lady knows. In fact, just 18 months ago, I held a home nations drugs summit in Glasgow to deal with exactly these issues. The hon. Lady consistently and persistently badgers me on these issues; I just wish she would apply the same persistence and badgering to her colleagues in the Scottish National party, who have been in government in Scotland for many years now and have presided over the worst drugs misuse and deaths numbers in the western world. I have committed to working closely with the Minister in Scotland on trying to improve those numbers; I wish the hon. Lady would do the same.

Siobhan Baillie: When we think about the family courts, we must be mindful of the experiences of not only families who desperately need court intervention to work smoothly but the families who should be nowhere near a judge and would not be if they had other support to resolve their differences. I know that the Justice team cares deeply about this complex issue and that welcome changes are coming next year, so what progress has been made on the implementation of the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 ahead of April 2022?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that a certain category of case, particularly in respect of the private family law courts, needs to go before a court because of safeguarding issues or domestic abuse. Such cases account for 60%, more or less, while the others ought to avoid going to court through the use of mediation or alternative dispute settlement. Not only is that the right thing to do for all those involved, and particularly for children, but it saves the precious resource of the family courts for when they are really needed.

Peter Grant: Will the coming review of human rights legislation explicitly acknowledge the concept of universal human rights—rights that are ours for no reason other than that we are human beings, that do not need to be conferred by any Parliament and that cannot be revoked by any Parliament on earth?

Dominic Raab: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was making the case for the wholesale repeal of the Human Rights Act, but we are not going that far. We need to put in place a legal framework and that will, of course, respect this country’s proud tradition of freedom under the rule of law.

Scott Benton: The courts complex in Blackpool is due to be relocated to allow a £400 million regeneration scheme to go ahead. The business case has already been submitted to the MOJ, so will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meet me to discuss it, get it approved and allow the ambitious regeneration scheme to proceed?

James Cartlidge: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that scheme. I would be delighted to meet him; it sounds like an exciting project.

Robert Halfon: Given what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing on prison education, will he support an amendment to the Skills  and Post-16 Education Bill that I plan to table to allow prisoners to do apprenticeships, to change their employment status and ensure that they get the minimum wage? The amendment is backed by members of the Education Committee, and I have discussed it with the Secretary of State for Education.

Dominic Raab: I thank my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee for his question. I have been talking to other Members about this important issue. If he would like to write to me or, indeed, meet me, I would be very interested in considering his idea further with the Secretary of State for Education.

Human Rights Legislation

Dominic Raab: Today, I am launching our consultation on proposals to overhaul the Human Rights Act and replace it with a Bill of Rights. I thank Sir Peter Gross and the panel he chaired for conducting the independent Human Rights Act review—the report of which is published today—which has influenced and informed our thinking in this regard.
The Government’s proposals for a Bill of Rights will strengthen this country’s proud tradition of freedom, curtail abuses of the human rights system and reinforce the democratic prerogatives of elected Members in this House over the legislative process in respect of the expansion of human rights. Above all, we will restore some common sense to the system.
At the outset, let me reassure the House—this issue was raised earlier in oral questions—that the UK will remain a party to the European convention on human rights. As we have shown with the introduction of our Magnitsky regime for human rights abuses, we will continue to lead internationally in the championing of freedom around the world.
Our objective in overhauling our human rights legislation will be to change, reform and revise the domestic interpretation and application of the convention by the UK courts. Following the reforms to the convention system reflected in the 2012 Brighton declaration, we will assert the margin of appreciation, as appropriate, in the UK’s dialogue with the Strasbourg Court.
As I said, we have a long, proud and diverse history of freedoms in this country that stretches back to Magna Carta through the 1689 Claim of Right Act and Bill of Rights, the Slave Trade Act 1807 and the Representation of the People Act 1918. It is a tradition steeped in great thinkers such as John Locke, John Stuart Mill and Isaiah Berlin, and in the advocacy of great champions of freedom and human rights from Emmeline Pankhurst through to Violet Van der Elst.
As we take the next step in our country’s reforms, and as we look to the future, we can and, I believe, should confidently build on those traditions and values.
Our proposals will recognise the right to trial by jury, as it applies variably across the different nations of the United Kingdom in important ways, as part of the common law tradition of human rights. We also have the opportunity to reinforce the weight we attach to freedom of speech, a quintessentially British right—the freedom that grants all the others—that we have seen eroded of late by a combination of case law that has introduced continental-style privacy rules and the incremental narrowing of the scope for respectful but rambunctious debate in politically sensitive areas, which is something we in this House should resist both on principle and in the interest of effective decision making that comes only from a full airing of contrary views. Freedom of speech sometimes means the freedom to say things that others may not wish to hear.
While retaining the European convention on human rights, we will prevent the misuse and distortion of those rights that we have seen from time to time through elastic and innovative expansions that go well beyond  anything the architects of the convention had in mind during the post-war settlement. Some of this has arisen from Strasbourg case law, and some has arisen from UK case law, and I make it very clear at the outset that my critique is levelled at the Human Rights Act and how it operates; it is not levelled at the UK judiciary, who have quite properly sought to implement legislation passed by this House.
I will give three examples of the problems we have encountered and a sense of how we can address them. Under our proposals, we will be able to prevent serious criminals from relying on article 8, the right to family life, to frustrate their deportation from this country. One example—the case law is littered with them—is the case of the convicted drug dealer who was also convicted of battery against his partner. He paid no child maintenance but, none the less, he claimed the right to family life to trump the public interest in his removal.
To give a sense of scale, because it is easy to cite one case or another and people will say it is not representative of the problem, article 8 claims now make up around 70% of all successful human rights challenges by foreign national offenders against deportation orders. Our proposals will enable us to legislate to curtail that abuse of the system, and hon. Members will have to decide whether they are for or against that proposition.
Secondly, under our proposed reforms we will be better able to protect the public in other ways by addressing our well-intentioned but, frankly, distorting jurisprudence. I cite the example of the Osman case, which has skewed the operational priorities of some of our major police forces. The ruling has required police forces to divert officers, resources and focus to protect criminal gangs from the threats they make to each other, which are of course time, effort and resources that could otherwise be prioritised towards protecting law-abiding members of our society.
Thirdly, these changes will help to deliver root-and-branch reform of parole proceedings, which hon. Members on both sides of the House raised with me in the aftermath of recent cases, including the case of Colin Pitchfork.
In these areas and others, our reforms will enable Parliament to act and, where necessary, assert the margin of appreciation with respect to Strasbourg while remaining party to the convention. We will achieve these objectives through carefully targeted reform under our Bill of Rights, which will revise and replace the framework provided under the Human Rights Act.
Our independent judiciary and parliamentary sovereignty are the cornerstones and the foundations of our democracy and, indeed, our success as a country. With that in mind, we will sharpen the separation of powers and reform the duty in section 2 of the Human Rights Act that requires UK courts to take account of Strasbourg case law, but has at various times been interpreted as a duty to match the Strasbourg jurisprudence, which is neither necessary nor desirable—[Interruption.] I see hon. Members shaking their heads, and I point them to the Ullah case in particular, but of course the case law has ebbed and flowed. That ebb and flow has created uncertainty, so it is right that we provide greater legal certainty by making clear the primacy of the UK’s own case law and primary legislation and the role of the UK Supreme Court, not Strasbourg, as the ultimate judicial arbiter when it comes to interpreting the European convention on human rights in this country. We will  make it crystal clear that the UK courts are under no duty to follow Strasbourg case law, which itself does not operate a doctrine of precedent.
Next, we will replace section 3 of the Human Rights Act so that our courts are confined to judicial interpretation and are no longer—effectively, in practice—licensed by the Act to amend or dilute the will of Parliament expressed through statute. One of the consequences of the elastic extension of rights has been the incremental expansion of so-called positive obligations on public authorities by the courts, which are something that has no basis in the convention, as even a cursory reading of the travaux préparatoires to the convention—the negotiating history—will demonstrate. That was the case in the Osman ruling, which I referred to; it has had the much broader effect of skewing public service priorities and allocation of precious public resources. Our approach will provide a check on what is quite properly a legislative function that ought to be left to elected lawmakers in Parliament.
Finally in this regard, as we reinforce a clearer demarcation of the separation of powers, we will consult on plans for a democratic shield. This will help to promote meaningful dialogue with Strasbourg—which we achieved in cases such as prisoner voting, which hon. Members on both sides of the House will remember—by asserting the margin of appreciation where it is appropriate. It will recognise the proper role of Parliament in responding to adverse rulings from Strasbourg, but let me be crystal clear: hon. Members in this House must have the last word on the laws of this land.
Next, one of the consistent complaints that we hear from the public is that human rights can be subject to abuse. Our proposals will address this in a number of ways. We will introduce a permission stage, similar to that which exists in continental jurisdictions, including in the German Constitutional Court and indeed the European Court of Human Rights itself. This will bring an appropriate check by requiring claimants to demonstrate that they have suffered a significant disadvantage, which will help to prevent spurious or unmeritorious claims.
We can also do more to recognise that rights come with responsibilities, so we will reform the approach to remedies so that our courts give greater consideration to the behaviour of the claimant and the wider public interest when considering the compensation that may be paid out. That will give judges greater discretion to strike the right balance between claimants’ rights, their responsibilities and indeed the rights of others in our society when considering human rights cases. It is not right that those who have broken the law can then reach out and claim human rights, to claim large chunks of compensation at the taxpayer’s and the wider public’s expense.
Our proposals also recognise the diverse legal traditions across the United Kingdom, as well as the common heritage that binds us together. That is the linchpin of our success as a Union. We will consult with each of the devolved Administrations and across the UK to get that balance right. We want to guarantee protections across the Union in accordance with a common framework reflecting our common traditions, while respecting devolved competences.
In this country, we have a long and proud tradition of liberty, but we must actively cherish and nurture it. As we write the next chapter in that proud history, our  proposals for a UK-wide Bill of Rights will strengthen our freedoms, reflect our legal traditions, curtail those abuses of the system, reinforce the separation of powers between the judicial and legislative branches and respect the democratic authority of this House, which—as so often in our history—has been a bulwark and the protector of our freedoms. I commend this statement to the House.

Steve Reed: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, but the truth is that this country’s criminal justice system is in crisis. There are record backlogs and delays in the Crown courts, drug use by prisoners is out of control, and just 0.6% of rape cases reported by women and girls ever result in a charge. If the Secretary of State really wanted to restore confidence in the system, his priority would be sorting that out, but he is choosing to fiddle with the Human Rights Act instead of stretching every muscle and sinew to make sure that rapists and violent offenders are banged up behind bars where they belong.
Every time the Government are in trouble politically, they wheel out reforming the Human Rights Act. It is a dead cat distraction tactic by a Government who do not know how to fix the criminal justice system that they have broken and are desperate to divert attention from the corruption scandals that they started. This is little more than an attempt to wage culture wars because they have surrendered in the war on crime and corruption.
The Secretary of State says that he will restore the role of Parliament and the UK courts in interpreting rulings from Strasbourg, but they already have those powers under the margin of appreciation that gives national courts freedom to implement convention rights on the basis of local laws and custom, so he is offering nothing new. He is telling us today that it is not necessary to leave the ECHR to deport foreign criminals, so why have his Government done nothing about that in their past 11 years in office? A quarter fewer foreign criminals have been deported in the last year than in the previous year, so it is clearly not the Human Rights Act that is preventing foreign criminals from being deported; it is this incompetent Conservative Government.
The Secretary of State has become so overexcited by his empty rhetoric that he has missed warnings from senior figures in the intelligence services telling him that his reforms could actually make it harder to deport foreign criminals, including terrorists. They warn that, if the Government go too far in raising the evidence threshold a person must prove to claim that deportation would disrupt their family life, that could affect the ability of MI5 and MI6 to provide evidence in secret to the relevant courts and lead to more cases going directly to the European Court, where evidence cannot be submitted in secret. Perhaps this is the level of detail that we should expect from a Secretary of State who does not know that the police can investigate crimes a year after they are committed—even in Downing Street—but is he really prepared to stand by as cases collapse and terrorists walk free?
These proposals are all mouth and no trousers. They do nothing to deal with the severe failings in the criminal justice system, they repatriate no powers that are not   already based here, and, astoundingly, they actually threaten to make it harder to deport the most dangerous foreign criminals, including terrorists. Labour will always defend the human rights of the British people to live in freedom, safety and security, but we face a Conservative Government who are high on tax, soft on crime and desperate to distract from their political failings. If the Secretary of State really wants to restore trust in the criminal justice system, his priority should be to fix it and bring wrongdoers more swiftly to justice. If he is prepared to ditch the empty rhetoric and political posturing, I will offer him my party’s full support in doing that.

Dominic Raab: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response. I read his remarks, which were quoted in the early hours of this morning, before we had published our consultation and hence before he had read the proposals in it. He accused me of merely tinkering with human rights and, in the next sentence, of ripping human rights to shreds. That is an impressive feat of flip-floppng in a single press statement, but I think it highlights the fact that the Labour party, or at least its current Front Bench, has absolutely nothing to say about this issue.
The hon. Gentleman talked about rape. We have published scorecards and in the new year we will publish local scorecards, which will highlight various points where the challenge is so we can tackle it. We have published a consultation on a victims’ law. We are rolling out section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to allow pre-recorded evidence from rape victims, and Operation Soteria is being piloted to bring about a better approach on the part of police and prosecutors. In fact, we are doing all the things that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. If he wants to be tough on criminals, as he claims, he should have supported our Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. If he wants to come down hard on drug dealers and serious offenders whom we should remove from this country, he should back our proposals to allow them to be deported.
The hon. Gentleman asked about security, and seemed to warp even the ludicrous reports about it that have appeared in the papers. Let me be absolutely clear: the reforms that we propose would strengthen our ability to deport foreign national offenders, and the reason we have faced a challenge is Labour’s Human Rights Act. If he looks at the data—if he is remotely interested in the facts—he will see that. We are not talking about deporting someone back into the arms of a torturing tyrant. I would not support that, and my party and this Government would not support it. We are not talking about article 3, but we are talking about article 8 and the right to family life, which makes up 70% of all successful human rights challenges. Let me quote to him what the architect of the Human Rights Act, Jack Straw, said:
“There is a sense that”
the Human Rights Act has become
“a villains charter”.
I have not used language like that. There is a sense and a genuine concern that terrorists are not being deported and that criminals are benefiting—that was from Labour’s own architect of the Human Rights Act.
The hon. Gentleman went on to criticise the approach we take to the Strasbourg Court. Let me read to him from one of the premium textbooks on the subject. The author said that the Strasbourg Court is primarily concerned with supervision and its role is subsidiary to that of the domestic authority. That author stated that it
“has no role unless the domestic system for protecting human rights breaks down”.
I agree with that, but it is not what we have in the Human Rights Act. That quote actually comes from the leader of the Labour party, in his seminal textbook on the subject back in 1999. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that Captain Hindsight rarely makes predictions for the future, but on this occasion he did and he was proved right, and that is exactly what our proposals for reform will deliver.

Bob Neill: The Lord Chancellor has made an important and considered statement and I am particularly grateful that he paid tribute to Sir Peter Gross and the work of his committee. Their report, such that I have been able to read it, because it is a detailed one, is very thoughtful and stands head and shoulders above the rather trite comments we get in politics and in the media. I commend the report to anyone who is seriously interested in the topic.
Does the Lord Chancellor agree that it is important that he has confirmed, as Sir Peter’s report confirms, the reality that the Strasbourg jurisdiction has never been binding on UK courts in the way that the European Court of Justice’s decisions once were, that the margin of appreciation is well established in the jurisprudence and that, therefore, as we make sensible reforms, which is always proper and appropriate, this is precisely the sort of area ripe for pre-legislative scrutiny through a Bill? Does he agree that, when we make changes, we should take on board, in particular, that we should not inadvertently permit legislation to go directly to Strasbourg, which would undermine the protections that our own domestic procedures have in relation to issues of security and other sensitivity? Surely that is capable of being dealt with in our reforms.

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He refers to the Independent Human Rights Act Review report by Sir Peter Gross, and I again thank Sir Peter and his panel for the extensive work they have done. They have not only shown us the challenges that the Human Rights Act has presented, but given us a range of options and influenced the approach that we have taken—they have certainly informed it. My hon. Friend is also right to highlight the confusion there has been with the case law of the Strasbourg Court, which does not operate, as many civil law courts do not, by adopting precedent; and the way in which, in the UK courts, particularly as a result of section 2, it has virtually been turned into a system of precedent. That is clearly an area where we can reform, and I think we can do it in a sensible way that respects the primacy of the UK courts and gives greater legal certainty for everyone involved.

Brendan O'Hara: I thank the Secretary of State for prior sight of his statement, which says that these reforms are necessary to
“curtail abuses of the human rights system”.
This Government regularly tell us that abuses of the system are the reason for all manner of reforms of legislation that simply does not suit them. I know from my experience of the Elections Bill recently that they rarely manage to produce anything other than anecdotal evidence—ironically, evidence that would not stand up in a court of law. So, this time, where is the empirical evidence for this enormous change and where can we see it? The Secretary of State says that the UK will remain a party to the ECHR, but, again, different Ministers give different answers, so will he confirm, once and for all, that every provision in the ECHR will be adhered to in full, without tinkering or equivocation? It takes some brass neck for this Government to invoke a history of upholding human rights, given that this statement comes hot on the heels of multiple dreadful pieces of legislation designed to absolutely trash those rights, be it the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, the Elections Bill, the Judicial Review and Courts Bill or, most appallingly, the Nationality and Borders Bill.
On Scotland, does the Secretary of State have any appreciation of how the Human Rights Act is fundamental to how the devolution settlement works and that any change to that would be a recasting of the UK’s constitution? I have no doubt that he will come back to me saying, “We will consult the devolved Administrations” but that is not enough. We expect—no, we demand—a guarantee that nothing will be done without the Scottish Government’s permission. The Scottish Government have made it absolutely clear that any attempt to erode the Human Rights Act will be robustly opposed. The Secretary of State may have scant regard for the democratically elected Government of Scotland, but he needs to understand just how much the people of Scotland value their human rights and how outraged they will be about this.
The SNP and the Scottish Government will fight to protect human rights across these islands and indeed across the globe. The best way we can do that is simply by voting yes in our next independence referendum, and I thank the Justice Secretary for the part he has played in ensuring that that happens.

Dominic Raab: The hon. Gentleman asked about the evidence basis for what we are doing. That has been set out at some length in the independent Human Rights Act review, if he takes the trouble to read it, which was published today and chaired admirably by Sir Peter Gross. It is also set out in the pretty extensive consultation document that we have published. I have said it once today but I am happy to reaffirm that we will stay within the European convention on human rights. We will qualify areas such as article 8—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says “Ah”, but he will know that paragraph 2 of article 8 invites qualification—it admits of it—in the interests of a whole range of reasons, including security. That will allow us to deport more foreign national offenders, in which we have been hamstrung by article 8 as it has been interpreted under the Human Rights Act. I am pretty sure that the people of Scotland, and the people across the UK, want us to be able to deport more serious, dangerous offenders from these shores.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the devolved Administrations. We are very sensitive to the devolved settlement. As he knows, the Human Rights Act is UK-wide legislation and a protected enactment under  the devolution settlement, and ending it is therefore a matter for the UK Government, but we also recognise that the devolved legislatures can legislate on human rights in areas that are devolved to them, and that will remain the case. I look forward to consulting with the relevant devolved Administrations and with civil society in all the nations of the UK.

Bill Cash: Would my right hon. Friend accept that this article 8 issue has been at the root of a great number of extremely unsatisfactory appeal decisions? Does he agree that, in the light of our sovereignty and our right to govern ourselves and have our own legal system in this context, the combination of that change and the Nationality and Borders Bill that we put through this House only last week will be of great benefit to the people of this country and immensely popular up and down the land in dealing with illegal immigration?

Dominic Raab: I thank my hon. Friend for the huge amount of forensic legal work and analysis he has put into this, as well as for his political and parliamentary contribution to the debate. He is right to say that the reforms will enable us to take measures to deal with the very real problems that his constituents and mine, and those in all four corners of the UK, are concerned about.
Article 8 is an interesting illustration. A lot of people say, “Well, we will still have to comply with Strasbourg”, and it is true that ultimately we will still have to accept the obligations under the convention, but the democratic shield will provide us with a proper means of stretching the margin of appreciation within the boundaries of the convention. Also, the case for article 8 expanded far more aggressively and energetically in this country, and it was later that the Strasbourg Court followed the case law in this country. So what we do is important, and the relationship is two-way. That is why the margin of appreciation, the dialogue and the provisions in the consultation document are so important.

Harriet Harman: I thank the Justice Secretary for his statement. It sounds as if he has come to the House with many of the complaints that all his predecessors since the Conservatives have been in government have made when they pledged to change the Human Rights Act, but those proposals have ended up amounting to nothing. We shall see whether he is able to turn his concerns into anything of substance. In the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we will obviously look carefully at his consultation and respond to the Gross review. Can I just say how pleased and relieved I am that he has made such a strong commitment to the European convention on human rights and all the rights protected therein, including article 8—the right to private and family life? I hope he will be able to confirm that he will do nothing to make it take longer or cost more for people to enforce their rights. He pledged to stand by the European convention. We cannot have a situation where those rights are available only for those who can afford to enforce them.

Dominic Raab: I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for her perfectly reasonable and thoughtful response. She is right that we will stay within the European convention. If she looks me up on the record, she will see that I have consistently said that the problem is not  the convention, which is totally unobjectionable as a list of rights. She asked about Conservative politicians bringing these concerns to the House of Commons. That is right. There have been long-standing issues with the Human Rights Act, but it is not just Conservative politicians. I cited Jack Straw—there have been others—as one of the architects of the Act who has been seriously concerned and has made the case for reform. So there are, across the political divide, strong arguments for making a change. We have put proposals forward—that is the difference—including draft illustrative clauses precisely to stimulate the kind of debate we should have. I think that that answers not only the right hon. and learned Lady’s point, but that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee, about pre-legislative scrutiny. By putting text out there for consideration, we can get right to the crux of these issues.
The right hon. and learned Lady rightly asked about remedies. We will, of course, retain effective domestic remedies, but what we will do with the permissions stage is have a check, which the Strasbourg Court itself has, on unmeritorious claims. It is also right that it has been a long-standing principle in this country that he who comes to equity must come to the court with clean hands. [Interruption.] She is nodding. I hope she agrees. So I think it is right for us to look at strengthening the provisions for the courts, within their discretion, to be able to take into account the wrongdoing of those who claim human rights.

John Howell: As the leader of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe, which looks after the ECHR, I am pleased to hear that we will remain in the convention. I think that that is very important to us. The ECHR is itself badly in need of reform. Will my right hon. Friend join me in the work I am already doing to try to achieve a reform of that court, so that it better deals with the human rights problems across the whole of Europe?

Dominic Raab: I thank my hon. Friend, who has been a champion of the ECHR and makes, in a powerful and eloquent way, the case for trying to deliver better outcomes at international level. We want that as well, so I will work with him and support his efforts. We, of course, want to ensure that the Council and ECHR system, post the 2012 Brighton declaration, is properly implemented. We were told—my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, the Chair of the Justice Committee, is nodding—that the Court was entering an age of subsidiarity, which also picks up on the point made by the leader of the Labour party back in 1999. What we are doing goes with the grain of that, but we will also hold Strasbourg and the Council system to its word to see through those reforms.

Valerie Vaz: It is the Justice Secretary who is contradictory, is it not? All the convention did was to be enacted in the Human Rights Act, so he cannot say he is keeping the convention and taking away the Human Rights Act. We are talking about evidence, not opinion. Will he publish a list of cases where British judges have not applied British law and have been hamstrung by European law?

Dominic Raab: I always enjoy engaging with the right hon. Lady on these subjects. She will see a list of the cases set out, the diagnosis, in both the IHRAR report by Sir Peter Gross and the consultation document. She will not have had a chance to read it cover to cover yet, but I encourage her to do so. She talks about it as if there is only one way to incorporate or implement the ECHR in UK law, but there is no one on either side of this debate who thinks that that is the case. We had proposals. I remember that when I sat on the Joint Committee on Human Rights there was consideration of a next stage of a Bill of Rights which took a different approach. We have seen in every Council of Europe member state different ways of enacting the ECHR, so I gently say to her that the convention and how it is interpreted and applied, in particular the operation of the separation of powers between the judicial, the Executive and the legislative branch, can be done in different ways and we want to sharpen that demarcation.

John Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that recent court judgments appear to have extended privacy law in this country against the provision of section 12 of the existing Human Rights Act and without the debate or approval of Parliament? Can he say whether his reforms will strengthen section 12 to right the balance, and will he stress once again the importance of freedom of expression?

Dominic Raab: My right hon. Friend, as ever, hits the nail on the head. We will be looking precisely at that provision. We think it was introduced with a legitimate aim. It is one of those things that we actually support, but that has not delivered the kind of emphasis and protection around freedom of speech. I agree with the point that he made about avoiding the incremental extension of continental-style privacy law into the UK; we have a common law tradition, and tend to have a greater emphasis on free speech and transparency. That is coupled with the EU influence—I do not want to get wholesale into that debate, but he will remember proposals for a right to be forgotten—and the sensitivities that we increasingly see around debate, which, in this Chamber, in our country and in our society, we have to protect, and our proposals will allow us to do just that.

Wera Hobhouse: After 96 people were crushed to death in the Hillsborough disaster and the victims themselves were blamed, it was the Human Rights Act that helped their families finally to have their voices heard. The Human Rights Act is also a cornerstone of the Good Friday agreement. Why do the Government see the need to create greater uncertainty and jeopardy in Northern Ireland just for the sake of political posturing? By the way, I have seen a very interesting poll by Lord Ashcroft, which is about what people in Northern Ireland think about the future. More than 60% now believe that there will probably be a united Ireland within the next 20 years.

Dominic Raab: I say gently to the hon. Lady that, if she looks at the Good Friday agreement, she will see that it talks about incorporation of the ECHR, not incorporation of the Human Rights Act. We have made it clear that we will maintain our position as a state party to the European Convention on Human Rights, which is complemented by our stalwart support of the Good Friday agreement.

David Evennett: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today on overhauling our human rights framework. Does he agree that his reforms, after discussion and deliberation with colleagues and a wide variety of people, must strengthen the role of Parliament and the UK courts, rather than relying on judgment from Strasbourg?

Dominic Raab: I thank my right hon. Friend. He has been a long-standing champion of this issue, and has had a long-standing interest in it. I think the separation of powers between the legislative, the Executive and the judicial branches is really important. We want a robust judiciary, which is why we are proposing to strengthen the primacy of the Supreme Court—it is called a Supreme Court for a reason, and there is not a doctrine of precedent in Strasbourg. We also need to make sure that if there are expansions of human rights, the shifting of the goalposts that frustrates many of our constituents, they are subject to the democratic scrutiny of this House.

Mark Hendrick: The Secretary of State said in his statement that the Government will make it crystal clear that the UK courts are under no duty to follow Strasbourg’s case law, so will it be a matter of pick and mix from the articles contained in the convention? If that is the case, using the Secretary of State’s logic, what is the point of being signatories to the ECHR when he has made it clear that the Government will choose only those articles they feel are appropriate?

Dominic Raab: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, he has not followed the point that I was making. We will stay within the European convention. There are some articles, such as article 8(2), which admit a qualification to protect security. We will avail ourselves of that. The issue is about the interpretation of the application. There is no doctrine of precedent in Strasbourg, which is one of the areas of confusion that has arisen because we do have a doctrine of precedent in the UK courts. We will make it clear that it is for UK courts to apply in relation to UK case law and UK circumstances and, above all, to follow the will of the elected lawmakers. When there is a declaration of incompatibility and the courts will be free to still use that tool, that should come back to this House to decide what to do.

Jonathan Djanogly: When speaking with politicians from former Soviet countries, it is invariably the European convention on human rights that they value as the protector of their, and indeed our, western democratic values. My right hon. Friend has made it quite clear that he is not intending to pull out of the ECHR or to change it, but I can foresee that this will cause upset with our allies, so will he today say that he will go to our allies and make it quite clear that he actually wants to back the ECHR and will be backing their democratic values?

Dominic Raab: I think the message we send—that we will remain a state party to the European convention—is important. We know how important it is in relation to our allies and partners and the Good Friday agreement. It is also incumbent on us to lead by example, as we have done for many years, and ensure that we have a system that is well regarded the world over. That means  getting our own house in order. Reforming the Human Rights Act and making sure we have clear separation of powers, and ensuring that, when the goalposts shift, this House—elected Members, accountable to our constituents—makes those decisions, are absolutely crucial.

Clive Lewis: If we were playing authoritarian bingo, after today’s statement, we would have a full house. Not only have the Government come for our trade union rights, our rights to vote and our rights to protest, now our human rights are up for grabs. Today’s statement does nothing to strengthen human rights and everything to weaken them. The Conservative party is not a party of freedom, but one of growing authoritarianism and many of them over there know it.

Dominic Raab: The hon. Gentleman has done one thing with his words: highlight the importance of protecting free speech and rambunctious debate, even though he is wrong in everything he said.

John Hayes: The Secretary of State is to be commended on the statement, but will he be clear that we need to challenge the very principle of natural rights, which gave rise to the Human Rights Act? It has had the effect of emphasising individual interest above social solidarity, weakening communal will and undermining the sovereignty of this Parliament, which is and always has been the primary guarantor of Britain’s rights. Will my right hon. Friend conduct a root and branch reform of that assumption about rights, put aside consideration of the Human Rights Act, which is part of the Blairite legacy, and challenge those parts of the convention that frustrate this Parliament and the wishes of the British people?

Dominic Raab: I always enjoy hearing my right hon. Friend’s side of the argument. As John Stuart Mill said:
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.”
I do not take quite the same view as my right hon. Friend, but I welcome his iconoclasm and his challenge to ensure that we get a better balance between individual rights— which, as he has often said to me, Bentham described as “nonsense upon stilts”—and communal and societal needs, and particularly public protection in the areas that I outlined, whether parole reform, police forces or deportation of foreign national offenders.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Llefarydd. During the course of devolution, Wales has developed a distinct body of law, which safeguards specific rights arising from international law, including the rights of children and older people. Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 makes it clear that
“observing and implementing international obligationsandobligations under the Human Rights Convention”
are the responsibility of our Senedd.
In Wales, we learn fast. We learn that, for this Government, the word “consult” means a tick-box exercise. I therefore ask the Secretary of State how the proposed consultation on the UK’s international human rights obligations will not undermine the Senedd’s ability to protect and promote human rights in Wales.

Dominic Raab: We will consult not only the devolved Administrations, but practitioners, academics and civil society in all the devolved nations. As I mentioned earlier, the Human Rights Act is UK-wide legislation and its enactment is protected under the devolution settlement. Amending it is for the UK Government. However, we also recognise that devolved Administrations can legislate on human rights in areas that remain devolved competences. That is the position. We respect it and I look forward to consulting the right hon. Lady and proving her cynicism wrong.

Christopher Chope: The welcome reforms are long overdue and now urgent, so will my right hon. Friend guarantee that the primary legislation to implement them after the consultation will be introduced before the summer recess of 2022?

Dominic Raab: It is important to have the consultation, to listen carefully and look at how we can refine, hone and chisel the proposals, given all the sensitivities we are very mindful of, but we want to introduce the Bill of Rights and get it enacted in this Parliament.

Barry Sheerman: I am not a lawyer, but this piece of legislation really worries me, because with legislation I always look at where the drive for it comes from. I cannot find it supported in the academic community, the legal community or the business community, and it is increasingly clear that it comes from the increasingly strident right wing of the Conservative party and the Back Benchers so positively in favour of it. Will the Secretary of State, even today, look at all the serious leaders in the newspapers—The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Independent? He has very few friends on this.

Dominic Raab: I think the hon. Gentleman must have read the papers a little bit quicker than I did. It is not just Conservative politicians. Indeed, former members of the judiciary make the case for reform very powerfully, and there is of course the Labour architect of the Human Rights Act in Jack Straw, who has made the case for reform. But the real truth is that the calls for reform and a bit more common sense in the system have come from our voters—the public—and he would do well to remember that.

Edward Leigh: I am a member of the Council of Europe, which I think has lost its way. It lets Russia literally get away with murder but interferes in the minutiae of so-called human rights in western democracies. I support what the Secretary of State has said today, but I want to be convinced that if we stay in the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe, what he is doing will actually make much difference. He can convince me in one way. At the moment, our deportation policy is a complete joke. We never deport anybody. Illegal migrants know that they can vanish in the community. Will he now convince me that after we pass this we will be able to deport these people and stop this illegal migration?

Dominic Raab: Human rights reform will no more be a silver bullet for all the ills of the world than any other reform, but it will deal with a whole range of serious and significant issues that the people of this country,  my right hon. Friend’s constituents and mine, want dealing with. The reason I give in the consultation paper—I wrote about it in The Times today—is that article 8 is an example of a qualified right that allows us to stretch, or to press, the margin of appreciation. Some 70% of the successful human rights challenges to deportation orders by foreign national offenders come from people claiming under article 8 on the right to a family life. That is a very good example of what we can address.

Karen Buck: Leading human rights lawyer and expert, and former adviser to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Adam Wagner, said of these proposals this morning that this Government may be the first in the history of liberal democracies to enact a Bill of Rights that has the effect of reducing rather than increasing rights and protections. Are a Government who have traditionally provided themselves on the defence of the individual against the state proud of that description?

Dominic Raab: I do not accept it, but I know that a number of people, including the shadow Justice Secretary, have commented on the proposals before having read them. Freedom of speech, and trial by jury and the recognition that we can give to it, are just two examples of the way we can strengthen human rights, but also strengthen the credibility of human rights so that they are not dirty words in the minds of many of the public.

Philip Hollobone: Significant planning harm is being caused in the Kettering constituency and across the country by Gypsies and Travellers deliberately building permanent, unauthorised structures in the open countryside, against all the planning regulations. When the local planning authority seeks to enforce against this in the planning courts, more often than not the authority is overruled by the Human Rights Act. Will the reforms that the Secretary of State has proposed today help to rebalance the planning system so that planning laws apply equally to everyone, everywhere?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend raises an issue that I have heard raised quite widely across the House. He will know that the Home Secretary has already announced proposals to strengthen our powers in relation to illegal encampments. The critical thing that our proposal for a Bill of Rights will do is protect legislation enacted in this House by elected Members accountable to our constituents and stop it being whittled away, revised or amended as a result of the Human Rights Act and what it requires the courts to do.

Claire Hanna: The Lord Chancellor’s statement made a cursory reference to the devolved regions. I am not sure if he ever got round to reading all of the Good Friday agreement after he revealed at the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that he had not read it, but the prospect of the Human Rights Act was critical in those negotiations and has proved crucial in the years since, both for victims and survivors and for all those seeking good governance in all areas of life, because it puts those safeguards in the hands of citizens. Has he received specific legal advice on the interaction of his proposals with Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Act 1998?

Dominic Raab: Of course we are very conscious of any impact on the Good Friday agreement settlement, which is why it is important to stay in the European convention. I hope that gives the hon. Lady the reassurance she needs.

Scott Benton: The residents of Blackpool are sick and tired of the way in which the Human Rights Act has been abused by foreign criminals so they can remain in the UK. My constituents will be delighted by my right hon. Friend’s statement, but can he reassure them that the measures he outlined will help to make it easier to deport dangerous foreign criminals and will work alongside our new Nationality and Borders Bill to make it easier to deport failed asylum seekers?

Dominic Raab: Let me be clear that, as we have set out at some length, there are some things that we cannot do. We cannot send people back to the arms of a torturing tyrant in violation of article 3. Even if we came out of the European convention, there would be other international treaties and frankly, morally, I do not think that is the right thing to do. The reality is, however, that the majority of the challenges that we have had—70% of those in relation to foreign national offenders—have come under not article 3 but article 8. That is a good example of why this reform will be meaningful and far-reaching, and will have the support of our constituents.

Debbie Abrahams: My fear is that the consultation on our Human Rights Act is more about giving more power to the Executive and there being fewer challenges to it than about meaningful reform. Will the Justice Secretary answer my earlier question on which of the following breaches of human rights, on which the courts ruled that the Government could be challenged, will no longer apply: rights against torture, rights against medical experimentation on British military personnel, or rights preventing discrimination against disabled people?

Dominic Raab: Of course it is right to say that in none of those areas will our reforms prevent accountability through constituents being able to bring cases to the courts. I will correct the hon. Lady on a broader point. If she looks at the consultation, she will see that it is not about accumulating authority or power to the Executive; it is about the separation of powers between the judicial and legislative branch. As the goalposts shift on human rights, which is fundamentally a legislative function, hon. Members on both sides of the House should be responsible for that, and ultimately should be responsible to our constituents for that.

Peter Grant: I first send best wishes for a speedy recovery to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), who, had she not tested positive for covid, would certainly have been here with some difficult questions for the Secretary of State. I have no doubt that those questions will be coming as soon as she is restored to full health.
The Secretary of State said that hon. Members in this House must have the last word on the law of the land, by which I presume he means this land. He will not forget that there are three other lands—three other nations—that are only partially under the jurisdiction  of this place and partly under the jurisdiction of their respective national Parliaments. Will he give an absolute guarantee that if any of those national Parliaments seeks to use its devolved powers to grant its citizens a higher level of human rights protection than is covered in UK legislation, the rights of those devolved Parliaments will be respected?

Dominic Raab: I pass on our best wishes to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). I hope that she is back up and running and well soon.
I say to the hon. Gentleman that we think that it is elected lawmakers who should have the last word on the laws of the land—that includes the devolved competencies. What he is saying, logic would suggest, is that he wants Strasbourg to be able to overrule not just Westminster but the Scottish Parliament. We are supporting democracy in all the nations of the UK and in this House.

Andrew Slaughter: This is the third or fourth attempt by successive Tory Governments to fillet the Human Rights Act, and it is no more coherent than the ones that were abandoned. We know that it is intended to pick on what are perceived as the easier or unpopular targets, but it will mainly disadvantage ordinary citizens of this country who are victims of unlawful decisions by the state. It purports to repatriate powers from Europe, but we are rightly staying in the European convention on human rights, so more decisions will go to Strasbourg. Judges will no longer be bound by the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, but they are not now. Will he take the opportunity of the consultation to look at that again and see whether the measures are coherent in any way?

Dominic Raab: I think this is the first time that a consultation document has been put forward to the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman is right that it has been much debated; we are now taking action. I am afraid that I disagree with him: we are very much focused on protecting and strengthening our tradition of freedom, of which I have given freedom of speech as an example.
Frankly, the hon. Gentleman has a choice to make. He can sit back and bask in the generalities of what he has said, or he can recognise, as the former Home Secretary and architect of the Human Rights Act does, that there has been abuse of the system and that if we reform and take our responsibilities in this House seriously, we can make a change for the better and introduce some much-needed common sense.

Kate Green: The Justice Secretary has made much of his concerns about article 8, the right to family life. To the extent that it affects the best interests of children, it is of course a particularly important article. Can he assure me that the changes that he intends to bring in will in no way water down our obligations to serve children’s best interests, as prescribed in the Children Act 1989, or our obligations under the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, to which we are of course a signatory?

Dominic Raab: Of course we live up to our international obligations, and it is precisely partly the aim of these reforms to protect the bespoke, tailored approach to  primary legislation when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable in our society, including through the Children Act.

Tony Lloyd: How will the Secretary of State convince me that his biggest supporters in this will not be President Erdoğan of Turkey and President Putin in Russia? Can he also tell me this: if the Government move ahead with his proposal to give an amnesty to those who committed murder during the troubles in Northern Ireland—and they do have that intention—and given that he says he supports the article 13 of the European convention, on the right to an effective remedy, how will the families of those murdered get justice if there is not proper access to the Strasbourg Court?

Dominic Raab: We are very confident that the proposals that we have put forward, given the passage of time, are ECHR-compliant. The hon. Gentleman talks about being friends with dictatorial countries. Frankly, this reform will be about restoring some common sense and some credibility to human rights in this country. He asks whose side we are on. We are on the side of the British public, and he should get on board.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The prospect of a Bill of Rights is an overwhelming project, as we all recognise. What steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that all minority groups receive protection, and that religious freedom and the expression and sharing of faith are explicitly protected as a foundation of this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—better together?

Dominic Raab: I thank the hon. Gentleman. Of course there are provisions for non-discrimination in the ECHR, but also in UK law. This reform will allow us to strengthen the protections that we in this House provide, including the hon. Gentleman, and make sure that they are not whittled away, not undermined, and not revised through a combination of section 2, section 3 and the other provisions of the Human Rights Act.

Jonathan Edwards: The Human Rights Act is entrenched in the Welsh constitution, so what amendments would need to be made, if any, to the Government of Wales Act if these proposals were to be implemented? Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking not to proceed to legislate unless he receives prior consent from the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive?

Dominic Raab: I thank the hon. Gentleman. As I said, it is a protective enactment. We will respect the devolved competences. Until we have got to the stage of full legislative proposals—which we will, and I look forward to having the discussion then—I think it is a bit too early to touch on the points that he made.

Margaret Ferrier: New licensing rules for arms trade announced last week are already causing concern that they could make it easier for international human rights abuses to be ignored when the Government make decisions on sales. Has the Secretary of State considered how changes to domestic human rights legislation could have a knock-on effect on our international strategies?

Dominic Raab: I would say we have one of the most robust and rigorous approaches to export licensing, and we will continue to do so.

Points of Order

Chris Matheson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Twice in the last couple of days I have been confounded in my attempts to represent my constituents by public authorities—[Hon. Members: “Who?”] NHS England and National Savings & Investments. They have refused to deal with me because they tell me that I do not have the permission of the constituents to share their details. Now, I do not know about your office, Mr Speaker, and I do not know about the offices of other hon. Members, but we are far too busy dealing with plenty of genuine cases to get a phone book, pick a name at random and make up a bogus case to write to these public authorities.
So can you confirm, please, Mr Speaker, that if a constituent comes to see us and asks us to make representations on their behalf, that should be considered by any public authority—not just NHS England or National Savings & Investments—to be permission granted by the constituent, and they should stop hiding behind such rules that do not exist?

Lindsay Hoyle: I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. Although I cannot comment on individual cases, I am aware that the data protection regime recognises the importance of constituency casework and that schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 2018 allows that data to be shared with elected representatives in certain circumstances. I am surprised that public authorities such as NHS England—which should know better given how many cases it deals with—and other public authorities do not appear to be aware of this. I am very disappointed that NHS England in particular should prevent hon. Members such as the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) from getting on with their duties. I hope that it will get the message quickly and reflect on what we are saying in this House.

John Baron: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At Defence questions on 15 November, I raised the plight of nearly 200 Afghans who had worked with the British Council but are still hiding in Afghanistan in fear of their lives, moving from safe house to safe house, often with no money, as they flee the Taliban. These individuals are eligible for the Afghan relocations and assistance policy scheme, but are facing long delays in their applications being processed. At Defence questions, the Secretary of State committed  to arranging a meeting with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Home Office, but despite regular chasing through the normal channels, this still has not taken place.
Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance as to how we can ensure that this meeting takes place, because a number of us across this place want to ask why there is such a delay in the processing of applications. I opposed and voted against the Afghanistan intervention once al-Qaeda were evicted, but I believe that we are now compounding our error by not honouring our debt of honour to these individuals—and it needs to be put right now.

Lindsay Hoyle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I am sorry to hear that the meeting with the Secretary of State that was offered almost a month ago has not yet happened. I am sure that this matter will be brought to the attention of the Secretary of State, and I expect the meeting to take place as quickly as possible. The hon. Gentleman has certainly put it on the record, and I would like to hear from him if the meeting does not happen.

Layla Moran: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 6 December, I tabled two named day questions to the Cabinet Office, asking about a simple matter: have air filtration systems been installed in rooms in No. 10 and No. 11; which rooms have they been installed in; and how much did that cost? Of course, the motivation was to see whether No. 10 has better protections than, say, schools. There are two days left before the recess and I am keen to get an answer before the House rises to those simple questions, which should have been answered by now. What more can I do to get the answers that we need before we all go on our Christmas break?

Lindsay Hoyle: I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. I am disappointed that the answers to named day questions were not given on the day specified, as they should have been. The hon. Member may well want to raise the issue with the Procedure Committee, which monitors the performance of the Government in this area. In the meantime, I am sure that the exchange will be brought to the attention of the Department, and hope that the answers will be provided quickly. The rules should be taken seriously by the Government. I am sure that everybody will be listening, and I am sure that the disappointment will be reflected on and responded to with an early answer.

Cold Climate Allowance

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Neale Hanvey: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on providing additional allowances to people in receipt of the state pension and other social security benefits in places with colder climates to reflect the increased cost of domestic heating; and for connected purposes.
The Bill seeks, on a cross-party basis, to introduce a cold climate allowance throughout the United Kingdom. I am grateful to the colleagues from eight parties, along with an independent Member, who have lent it their support. I am pleased that, as well as having cross-party support, the Bill has attracted support from MPs in each of the constituent nations of the UK. Indeed, as someone who was born in the north of Ireland, I am pleased that every party from Northern Ireland represented in this Chamber supports the Bill. That is no small achievement.
In essence, the Bill is the same as Bills introduced in the 1980s by the former SNP leader Gordon Wilson MP and in the 1990s by the former SNP parliamentary group leader Margaret Ewing MP. I consider it a great honour to follow in their footsteps.
The Bill is UK-wide in its scope and seeks to tackle income, as one of the recognised causes of fuel poverty, by paying a cold climate allowance: an additional monetary payment during the winter months that would be paid directly to eligible people in receipt of the state pension and other social security benefits. The amount of the proposed cold climate allowance is based on paying 10%, 20% or 30%—depending on location—of the annual equivalent service charge for fuel and associated costs that is calculated in respect of housing benefit. It would be an automatic and continuing payment, over 17 weeks from December to March.
The Bill would divide the United Kingdom into four climatic zones: zone 4 would cover the highlands and northern Scotland and would result in an automatic weekly payment of £45.05; zone 3 would cover central and southern Scotland, Northern Ireland and northern England and would provide a weekly payment of £27.56; zone 3 would cover central England and Wales and would entail a weekly payment of £13.78; and zone 1 would cover the remainder of the United Kingdom but would not produce an automatic payment. Existing cold weather payments would continue to apply in zone 1, as they would throughout the UK during cold weather snaps.
The Bill has been welcomed by those organisations in the UK that are committed to ending fuel poverty—namely, Energy Action Scotland and its sister body National Energy Action, which operates in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Why should we introduce a cold climate allowance now? People right across the UK face a perfect storm this winter, with rising energy bills combined with an increase in the energy price cap and falling incomes for families, particularly in the wake of the removal of the universal credit uplift. The Bill would go some way towards shielding our most vulnerable from that perfect storm. In addition, there is a crisis in the energy market  as large energy suppliers go out of business. With the rise in wholesale gas prices, 28 suppliers have gone out of business in the UK, including Bulb Energy, Britain’s seventh-largest supplier with 1.7 million customers.
Energy Action Scotland predicts that, as a result of high energy prices, poor levels of energy efficiency in homes and falling incomes, this winter
“many lives will be lost and unnecessary pressure placed on the NHS”.
Already, 2,000 more lives in Scotland are lost across the winter months than in the summer because people are living in cold, damp and difficult-to-heat homes.
All Members will be aware of rising household energy prices. The surge in the market price of gas is unprecedented and has more than quadrupled in the last year. National Energy Action estimates that the expected increase in gas bills in April could mean that the cost of heating the average home will have doubled over the past 18 months. Energy prices are already high and are set to rise substantially in April 2022, with high prices expected for some time to come.
New research published only last week by the Global Change foundation predicts that household energy bills are set to rise by up to £900 per annum in the coming year. Customers on standard tariffs will see a rise of between £450 and £650, and those who switch from cheaper fixed-price deals as they expire will go on to the price cap, which could see a rise of between £700 and £900.
According to National Energy Action, the cost of living is at its highest level in a decade, with household energy bills being the principal driver. NEA estimates that average domestic energy bills have soared by more than £230 per customer compared with last winter. This leaves 4.5 million households across the UK now struggling to heat and power their homes. Many are sinking further into debt; others are forced to ration their energy use or turn off the heating altogether, leaving them at acute risk of serious ill health or even premature death.
Unfortunately, many energy experts predict that bills will soar again this coming April, possibly by as much as £550 for the average dual fuel bill. Those calculations are based on average energy use;larger families and people who live in poorly insulated homes are likely to pay even more.
Last week, E.ON Energy chief executive Michael Lewis told ITV:
“Many people are in for a shock”.
He said that risingenergy bills
“will certainly cause hardship to customers.”
The Bill would go some way towards addressing that hardship for some of our most vulnerable constituents this winter. According to a new study published earlier this month by Citizens Advice Scotland, 36% of people in Scotland—one in three—are now struggling to pay their energy bills.Of those, 80% cited rising energy bills as a reason.
Why pay a different cold climate allowance in different parts of the UK? The stark reality is that it is colder in different parts of the UK and that weather conditions are predictably more severe in some areas than others. The different rates of cold climate allowance that the Bill proposes would reflect those climatic variations.It is thanks to the campaigning efforts of Margaret Ewing  and others in decades past that the UK Government finally conceded the difference in heating costs across the UK. According to the Building Research Establishment domestic energy model, taking Bristol as a baseline, heating a typical semi-detached house with gas central heating requires 23% more fuel in Glasgow, 28% more inEdinburgh, 32% more in Dundee, 41% more in Aberdeen,53% more in Braemar and a staggering 66% more in Lerwick.
We know that there are extreme pressures in remote, rural and island communities. Households, particularly in off-gas areas, face some of the highest energy costs anywhere in the UK.Households in Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles of Scotland endure the highest rates of fuel poverty. The Bill would provide those households with welcome additional support.It is beyond doubt that significant climatic variation exists across the UK; the Bill would allow us to balance it and do something meaningful about it.
Why use incomes to tackle fuel poverty, not home insulation or other energy efficiency measures? It is not a case of either/or. Someone may have the most energy-efficient home in the world, but if they have insufficient income, they may be too afraid to turn on their heating system or use it to the level required to provide adequate warmth.Indeed, the home energy efficiency standard in the social rented sector in Scotland is an exemplar in these islands, but many of the people occupying those homes are on low incomes or in receipt of the retirement pension or other social security benefits.Further help for households struggling to afford the rising cost of energy is therefore necessary in Scotland and across the UK.The Bill seeks to provide that support.
Frazer Scott, chief executive of Energy Action Scotland, put it well:
“Far too many people are facing a cold, cold winter, unable to afford to heat their homes to the levels that support their health and wellbeing.”
Age Scotland and Age UK have both highlighted the financial challenges that older people face this winter.These people are our constituents and we have a duty to act.Energy Action Scotland and National Energy Action believe that more must be done to amplify support  when extreme weather has an impact on already financially stressed households. People should never feel compelled to self-disconnect or otherwise ration their energy supply. National Energy Action says:
“We hope the Bill is successful or, at the very least, it prompts the UK Government to come forward with their own proposals to help more vulnerable households afford a warm home”.
As we move into winter recess, hon. Members may view winter scenes on Christmas cards with warm fondness. However, it is likely that too many of our constituents will be filled with fear and dread if such wintry conditions descend upon their reality. My Bill would provide practical help in the winter months when it is needed most, help to keep people warm, reduce pressure on the NHS and, ultimately, save lives.I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Neale Hanvey, Kenny MacAskill, Angus Brendan MacNeil, Grahame Morris, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Liz Saville Roberts, Jim Shannon, Claire Hanna, Stephen Farry, Margaret Ferrier and Alison Thewliss present the Bill.
Neale Hanvey accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 218).

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (1) (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), proceedings on the Motions in the name of Maggie Throup relating to Public Health (SI, 2021, Nos. 1400, 1415 and 1416) and the Motion in the name of Secretary Sajid Javid relating to the draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) (No. 2) Regulations 2021, shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 6.30 pm; the Speaker shall then put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on those Motions forthwith; such Questions, though opposed, may be put after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Craig Whittaker.)

Public Health

[Relevant documents: First Special Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, Rule of Law Themes from COVID-19 Regulations, HC 600 and the Government Response, HC 774; Fourth Report of the Justice Committee, Covid-19 and the criminal law, HC 71.]

Eleanor Laing: The Business of the House (Today) motion just agreed to by the House provides for the motions on the four statutory instruments on today’s Order Paper, each relating to public health, to be debated together until 6.30 pm. At the end of the debate, the Deputy Speaker will call the Minister to move each motion formally and will put the Question on each motion separately. I hope that that clarifies the situation for the House.

Sajid Javid: I beg to move,
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (SI, 2021, No. 1400), dated 9 December 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9 December, be approved.

Eleanor Laing: With this we will take the following motions:
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) (No. 6) Regulations 2021 (SI, 2021, No. 1415), dated 13 December 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13 December, be approved.
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Entry to Venues and Events) (England) Regulations 2021 (SI, 2021, No. 1416), dated 13 December 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13 December, be approved.
That the draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) (No. 2) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 9 November, be approved.

Sajid Javid: The covid-19 pandemic has caused upheaval across the world, forcing Governments everywhere to wrestle with how to keep their citizens safe while protecting the liberties that we all hold dear. We have learned a lot from our experience and the experience of others, and of course we are still learning. But we can take huge pride that thanks to the defences that we have built, so much of this year has been a year of recovery. We have enjoyed greater freedom than at any time during the pandemic so far. Thanks to the rapid progress of our vaccination programme, our investment in treatments and our decision to open up during the warmer summer months, we are in a far stronger position than we were last winter.
But even as I stood at this Dispatch Box back in July to announce the major milestone of taking step 4 in our road map, I said that
“we know that the greatest risk to the progress we have made is the possibility of another new variant, especially one that can escape immunity and puncture the protective wall of our vaccination programme”.—[Official Report, 12 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 22.]
We have always known that variants have the potential to knock us off our course, and we have built the capacity to identify and respond to those that pose a threat.
The vast majority of new variants present no risk whatsoever. Since the summer, there have been hundreds of new variants, but only one of them—omicron—has been designated a variant of concern. For example, just  last month, I updated the House from this Dispatch Box on AY.4.2, a new form of the delta variant, which preliminary analysis showed at that time might be more infectious. I said then that we would keep it under review, and that is what we did—and we took no action.
But omicron is a grave threat. We acted early to slow its spread, strengthening our testing regime and placing 11 countries on the travel red list, but despite those swift steps, the data over the past few days has shown more cause for concern. I would like to reinforce to the House today—to all hon. Members—why omicron represents such a risk to the progress that we have all made so far together.

Mark Harper: I am listening carefully to the Secretary of State’s comments and am grateful that he has brought these measures before the House. I asked him yesterday whether he would give a commitment at the Dispatch Box to recall the House if the Government had to bring further measures in other than those being proposed today, so that we could be involved on behalf of our constituents in making that decision. He kindly agreed to take that matter away and discuss it with the Prime Minister. Is he able now, at the Dispatch Box, to commit that if the Government were to take further measures to deal with omicron during the recess, they would recall the House of Commons so that we are able to have all the evidence and participate in taking those decisions on behalf of the constituents we represent?

Sajid Javid: I of course understand the importance of my right hon. Friend’s question; as he said, he asked it yesterday and, understandably, has asked it again today. I hope he will understand that I am not able to give that commitment alone; it would not be a decision for me and my Department alone, but I know the Government would consider it together seriously.

Andrew Murrison: Might the Secretary of State consider going a little further? Since the data is changing all the time—almost by the minute—it is inconceivable that in a week’s time and a week after that we will be in the same place that we are in today. This House needs to consider the information available to it in near real time, so will he go away and consider whether it would be appropriate now to ensure that the House is able to consider these matters for sure next week and the week after that?

Sajid Javid: I will consider that. My right hon. Friend is right to point out that this is a fast-moving situation and it is right that the Government continue to monitor it and respond when necessary, but I hope my right hon. Friend will agree that right here and now the matter being debated and the regulation before the House is the best possible response that can be given by this Parliament today.

Andy McDonald: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Sajid Javid: I will, but then I will need to make some progress.

Andy McDonald: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. If he is going to consider those matters will he also consider the following issue? The  virus spreads if people are not able to isolate, so will he think about addressing the issue of statutory sick pay, and in particular spreading the scope of SSP and raising it to a proper rate so that people can isolate and therefore not spread the virus and not end up in our hospitals?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman will know that some measures are already in place such as the ability to get sick pay from day one and that there are hardship funds, but I understand the hon. Gentleman’s question: he asked us to look at that further and we will do so. All these matters are under review.

Toby Perkins: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Sajid Javid: No, I will take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman later.
I want to turn now to some of the things we have learned about the new variant. This is a fast-moving situation and in the last week we have been able to determine the following things with a high degree of confidence. First, omicron is more transmissible than the delta variant. We can see that the growth in omicron cases here in the UK is now mirroring the rapid increase in South Africa, and the current observed doubling time is around every two days. Although yesterday we reported that there were 4,713 confirmed cases of omicron in the UK, the UK Health Security Agency estimate for the number of daily infections was 42 times higher at 200,000. Scientists have never seen a covid-19 variant capable of spreading so rapidly, so we have to look at what we can do to slow omicron’s advance.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Sajid Javid: I give way first to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas).

Caroline Lucas: The Secretary of State is making a strong point about exactly why we need to do far more to address the threat of omicron, but does he accept that the Government’s mixed messaging has been incredibly unhelpful? Telling people that a tsunami of omicron is on the way but at the same time saying we can go on partying absolutely undermines that message. Will he have the moral courage to say that we actually do need to reduce our social contacts, and will he make it possible for people to do that both with the sick pay we have already talked about and by ensuring businesses get the financial support they need if fewer people are going into their premises?

Sajid Javid: What I think we need to do are the measures that are in front of the House today, and I hope the House will support them. I think those are the most important measures we can take right now.

Andrew Bridgen: But has the Secretary of State seen the statement from Dr Angelique Coetzee, the head of the South African Medical Association, today? She says that the Government’s measures on lockdown may be counterproductive, that omicron is a mild form of covid-19 that will have huge benefits for herd immunity and protection, and that delaying its spread may give time for more virulent and pathogenic variants to take hold and cause more deaths in the UK.

Sajid Javid: First, I think my hon. Friend, if I heard him correctly, talked about the “Government’s measures on lockdown”. I am not sure where he has seen these measures on lockdown, because they are certainly not being presented by this Government here today. On whether the omicron variant is milder, I will come to that issue very shortly.

Alec Shelbrooke: Building on the point from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), which my right hon. Friend says he is about to expand on, the question is: when will we know whether omicron gives severe or mild disease? If it is mild, how quickly could the decision be made that this would be an advantage to get rid of delta and to get herd immunity while it does not create strong disease?

Sajid Javid: If my right hon. Friend will allow me, I am about to come to precisely the point he raises.
The second thing about omicron that I want to share is that, although we do not yet have a complete picture of its severity, even if its severity is significantly lower, the much higher transmissibility of omicron means that it still has the potential to overwhelm the NHS. Let us take the current observed doubling time of two years—[Interruption.] Sorry. Let us take the current doubling time of two days. If, for argument’s sake, omicron is only half as severe as delta, after the lag between cases and hospitalisations has taken effect, that would buy us only two days before omicron hospitalisations reach the same level as for delta.

Neale Hanvey: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Sajid Javid: I will do so later.
In England, 10 people are confirmed to have been hospitalised with the omicron variant. I know that some hon. Members have said that, because confirmed hospitalisations from omicron are low, we do not need to act, but it is the fact that omicron hospitalisations are low that means now is the best time to act. We have seen during previous waves—we have already seen this—that the lag between infections and hospitalisations is about two weeks. When infections are rising so quickly, we are likely to see a substantial rise in hospitalisations before any measure starts to have an impact, so there really is no time to lose.

Bob Seely: I understand the nuanced point that my right hon. Friend is making, but on the forecasts, does he accept that many academics have doubted the previous forecasts, describing them as “hysterical”, “substantially inflated”, “consistently overconfident”, “lurid” and “severely flawed”? We have had a problem with inaccurate forecasts. Does he accept that point?

Sajid Javid: Yes, I absolutely accept that point. With previous variants of covid, we have seen forecasts and estimates—whether from academics, think-tanks or others—that have been completely off the mark, but all I would say, gently, to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members is that, just because several forecasts in the past have been wrong, it does not mean that every estimate or forecast is always wrong. I hope my hon. Friend will note that.

Greg Clark: My right hon. Friend talks about hospitalisations and the danger they may cause to the NHS, but will he reflect on the fact that it is not just hospitalisations but the length of stay in hospitals that determines how many beds are occupied? Evidence from South Africa suggests not only that there are fewer hospitalisations, but that people are in hospital for a much shorter time. Is that reflected in his calculations?

Sajid Javid: Yes, I can confirm that to my right hon. Friend. First, he is absolutely right to make that point. Of course it is not just about individuals entering hospital but about how many days they are likely to stay in hospital. I believe that for the delta variant an individual stays, on average, about nine days in hospital. If that was cut to five or six days, of course it would help with capacity. First, we cannot assume that, because what we are seeing in terms of the impact in South Africa is that hospitalisations there are rising rapidly; there are hundreds of people in intensive care units and on ventilators. It is hard to completely read that across, given that the average age of the South African population is about 27. I hope he would agree that, as with the point I just made on severity, even if the hospital stay is half of what it is at the moment, the rate at which this thing is growing—and if it continues to grow at that rate—means that that benefit could be cancelled out in two days.

Toby Perkins: The Secretary of State is facing a lot of criticism from behind him, but he should be assured that on these Benches we absolutely recognise the dangers of the variant before him. Does he accept, however, that having come in to his post saying that the end of restrictions was “irreversible”, he has created an expectation that he is going to constantly ignore the scientific advice, which is why he is facing so much disappointment from those behind him now?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman may have heard earlier, when I started my remarks, that I talked about what I said at this Dispatch Box in July and, specifically, about the risk of a vaccine-escape variant. I do want to talk about the vaccines and this variant—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Sajid Javid: I will give way one more time for now and then I will come back to other colleagues.

Steven Baker: I am grateful, and I think my views on this are pretty well understood. Given the case the Secretary of State is setting out, one thing I am puzzled by is why he is only going as far as he is. Will he explain to us why, in his estimation, the measures he is taking are equal to the situation that he is describing?

Sajid Javid: That is a very fair question, as always from my hon. Friend. In the measures we are setting out, we are taking into account the very best advice we are being given—this includes making sure that we are not just listening to every piece of advice or every forecast we are seeing. He will recall that back in the summer had we listened to some of the advice we were receiving we would not have opened up in the way we did. So we are taking account of the advice, deciding  whether it should influence our decision making and then coming to a balanced and proportionate response: the measures I have talked of and, for example, increasing the booster programme, which I will turn to in a moment too.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Sajid Javid: I must make some progress, but I will take further interventions in a moment. I wish to talk about the importance of what we have learned about omicron and the vaccines. Vaccines have proven to be highly effective against previous variants, such as the alpha and delta variants. That has weakened the link between cases, and hospitalisations and deaths, and it has allowed us to reopen our country once more. But recent analysis from the UK Health Security Agency has shown that two doses of a vaccine provide much lower levels of protection against symptomatic infection from omicron when compared with the delta variant. More encouragingly, effectiveness rose considerably in the early period after a booster dose, providing about 70% to 75% protection against symptomatic infection. This data starkly shows the importance of booster doses and why we are working so hard to get many more boosters into arms. I will say more about that in just a moment. Our strategy is to take proportionate action now, to come down hard on this virus and strengthen our defences, rather than waiting until it is too late.

Richard Graham: Surely the whole point is that we cannot be complacent and assume that this likely huge increase in infections is all going to result in very mild symptoms. What the Government are doing, therefore, is taking modest steps to ensure that if that does not happen, we will be prepared. Will he promise that if this situation does not materialise, he will be able to relax again?

Sajid Javid: We all want to relax. I wish I was more relaxed now than I already am. My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that, and I agree with him.

Rachael Maskell: I appreciate that this is an escalating situation which needs urgent attention, but the fact is that if we are enabling social mixing, that is the very context in which we will see transmission, as we did with delta last December. Will the Secretary of State review these measures, as it seems that the statutory instruments before us today are already out of date?

Sajid Javid: It is of course important that we keep measures under review, but, for the reasons I gave earlier, I will continue to present this set of measures to the House. They strike the right balance and are a proportionate response.

Aaron Bell: My right hon. Friend may be interested to learn that Dr Angelique Coetzee gave evidence to the Science and Technology Committee this morning, and, rather contrary to her piece in the Daily Mail, she actually endorsed what the Government are doing. She said that the boosters were definitely the absolute priority, but she also referred to masks and avoiding mixing. When asked specifically  about the covid pass proposals, she said that they sounded like a proportionate response to the requirements of the situation.

Sajid Javid: I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that with the House. I think it is important to hear that support from South African experts too.

Chris Grayling: We are all, of course, concerned to hear that plan C measures are already being discussed, and I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could lay that to rest. However, I want to raise the question of hospitalisations. There is a difference between people who have been hospitalised with omicron and those who have hospitalised from omicron. Will my right hon. Friend tell us what he knows about those cases? How many people have been admitted to hospital for other reasons, and how many have arrived in hospital because they are seriously ill with omicron?

Sajid Javid: What I can tell my right hon. Friend is that there are approximately 6,000 people in English hospitals who have tested positive for covid, and of those—I have shared information like this with the House before, because I was determined to obtain it when I first became Health Secretary—approximately 80% are there because of covid symptoms, while about a fifth are there for other reasons, but were tested for covid and happened to have it. I hope that that is helpful to my right hon. Friend.

Richard Burgon: I really must press the Secretary of State on this issue, on behalf of workers in my constituency and across the country, particularly low-paid workers. Why are the Government not offering us a vote today on whether to increase sick pay to real living wage levels? We cannot have a situation in which the Government are making the case that this matter is so serious—which it is—while forcing low-paid workers to choose between food on the table and self-isolating to protect the rest of the community.

Sajid Javid: Where I agree with the hon. Gentleman is on the importance of using measures to support people. Support is already there, but I recognise from the way in which he phrased his question that he thinks there should be more support. I understand that we have a difference of view on that, but it is something we keep under review.
When I announced our autumn and winter plan to the House in September, I explained that we would hold measures in reserve in case the NHS was likely to come under unsustainable pressure and stop being able to provide the treatment that we want all our constituents to receive. Yesterday NHS England announced that it would return to its highest level of emergency preparedness, incident level 4, and unfortunately there is now a real risk that the exponential rise in omicron cases will translate into a spike in hospital admissions and threaten to overwhelm the NHS.
We have done so much to boost the capacity of the NHS. Over the past year we have increased the number of doctors by 5,000 and the number of nurses by almost 10,000, and we have expanded the number of beds available, but we have also had to put in place measures  for infection control which have limited that capacity, and there are already more than 6,000 covid-19 patients in hospital beds in England.
Despite the progress that we have made, the NHS will never have an unlimited number of beds, or an unlimited number of people to look after people in those beds. If we think that capacity risks being breached, we simply have to step in, because we know what that would mean in practice for both covid and non-covid care. It would mean one of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, maybe a child, is in a car crash and is in need of emergency care, and the NHS has to make difficult decisions about who deserves treatment and who does not. Now, I know that some hon. Members think that this is merely hypothetical, but it is not. We have seen health services around the world become overwhelmed by covid-19 and we cannot allow that to happen here.

Layla Moran: I am extremely grateful to the Health Secretary for mentioning frontline NHS staff. The all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus had a hearing this morning where we heard that staff are suffering moral injury because they are having to make exactly the decisions he outlined. The other thing we heard is that there is a worrying suggestion that omicron may be worse for children than delta. What assessment has he made of that risk? What is his plan for children to protect them against this deadly new wave?

Sajid Javid: First, I very much agree with the hon. Lady about the phenomenal work everyone in the NHS has been doing at all times, but especially over the past two years during this pandemic. They could not have delivered more. On her question about children and omicron, I am afraid we do not have any evidence on that yet that I have seen. We take the impact of omicron very seriously—I hope she can see that—and we will keep that under review.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Sajid Javid: I will take some interventions in a moment, but I want to just finish this section.
We are also giving the NHS more time to put boosters in arms. I can assure the House that we will not waste a single second in doing that. We have already given more booster doses than anywhere else in Europe and 44% of the people in this country over the age of 18 have already been boosted. However, the recent data showing the importance of booster doses for our fight against omicron has highlighted the need to go even faster. Yesterday, I set out to the House how we are bringing forward the target we set ourselves, so that everyone who is eligible and aged 18 and over in England will be offered the chance to get their booster dose before the new year. This is a new national mission: a race between the virus and the vaccine to get as many people protected as soon as possible.
Just as we embark on this huge logistical endeavour in the short term, we are also looking at the long term. We have already signed contracts to buy a total of 114 million extra doses of future-proof vaccines that will help our country’s vaccination programme over the next two years. The deals we have struck will give us the earliest access to modified vaccines to combat omicron and future variants of concern should we need them.

Luke Evans: The Secretary of State is absolutely right. I am overjoyed that boosters are the key to getting the country out of this issue. I have raised, over the past couple of weeks and last week in PMQs, the issue of the 15-minute wait post-Pfizer. I wonder if the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency or the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation have come to a conclusion on that, because that would free up a huge amount of capacity when it comes to delivering the boosters?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend did raise that point yesterday. It is being looked at very urgently. I am sure he will agree that if it is done, it should be done in a safe way that our regulators are happy with. I can confidently say that I expect an urgent update later today as soon as I leave this Chamber.

Alec Shelbrooke: I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend said about the pressure on the NHS and the difficult problems that will occur if we have unvaccinated people blocking ICU beds. As he said, however, variants come along. He is making the case that, even if symptoms are only mild there will be exponential growth of cases in hospitals. What is the plan going forward? There is a set of measures today to deal with the situation now—fair enough—but if this is going to keep happening, how do we avoid being sat here in three months’ time, five months’ time or six months’ time debating the same thing? What is the plan?

Sajid Javid: That is a very fair question. I will say more about that in a moment, but I point my right hon. Friend to one of the things I have just mentioned, which is better and better vaccines. In the future, we will have poly-variant vaccines. Because of the orders we have already placed, we are at the front of the queue for such vaccines.

Angela Eagle: Has the Secretary of State noticed, as I have, the view that omicron may have originated in Africa in an immunosuppressed sufferer of HIV, where these viruses can mutate much faster than they would under other circumstances? Does he agree that the best way of dealing with this is to get vaccines into as many people in Africa as possible and to ensure that HIV/AIDS sufferers are given access to the proper treatment?

Sajid Javid: There is lots of speculation on how omicron may have originated. I will not add to that speculation now, but I agree with the hon. Lady’s general point, which is a powerful point, about the need to get more vaccines to people in developing countries, whether in Africa, Asia or elsewhere. We can be proud of what the UK has already done—more than 20 million vaccines delivered through COVAX or directly, and almost another 10 million on the way. We are completely committed to meet our target of 100 million vaccine donations by June 2022.

Andrew Bridgen: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. Just before the Secretary of State makes further progress, it is absolutely right that he should be taking a lot of interventions—there are a lot of questions to be asked—but people who have already made one intervention should not be making a second or a third intervention  and certainly not if they also wish to be called to speak later in the day. I have too many people who wish to speak and there is not going to be enough time for everybody. Be sure—if you keep intervening, you do not get to speak. Let us have a little consideration for others.

Sajid Javid: I shall indulge my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) because he is going to be really short.

Andrew Bridgen: The Secretary of State knows that I have been short all my life. He said earlier that the average age in South Africa was 27.5 years. I fear that he may have mis-spoken or been badly advised. In fact, the median age in South Africa is 27.5 and the comparative median age in the UK is 40.5—not radically different.

Sajid Javid: I am pleased that I took that intervention because I do not want people to think in the way my hon. Friend has suggested. I have to disagree with him. There is a big difference between those two ages, and the last time I looked the median can be described as an average. But I am pleased that he shared that because it highlights my point.

Clive Lewis: rose—

Sajid Javid: I do need to plough on, but I will take some interventions a bit later.
For the reasons that I have set out, I believe that the responsible decision is to move to plan B in England, drawing on the measures that we have held in contingency to give more time to get those boosters into arms. These are not steps that we would take lightly. I firmly believe in individual liberty and that curbs should be placed on our freedoms only in the gravest of circumstances. Not only that, but I am, of course, mindful of the costs that restrictions can bring to the nation’s health, to our education and to the economy. So it is vital that we act early and we act in a proportionate way, doing whatever we can to build our defences and to preserve greater freedom for the long term. I am confident that these measures are balanced and proportionate, and that they still leave us with far fewer restrictions than are in place in most countries in Europe. I can assure the House that we will keep reviewing the measures that we have put in place and we will not keep them in place for a day longer than we have to.

Stephen Hammond: Specifically on the regulations, given the regulation on refusal of entry, the small number of venues and the large number of exemptions and the lack of protection for double-vaccinated people, why not make it a necessity for everybody to show a lateral flow test, rather than showing double vaccination?

Sajid Javid: If my hon. Friend allows me, I will come to that point shortly.
I said a moment ago that we will not keep measures in place for a moment longer than we need to. For example, now that there is community transmission of omicron in the UK and that omicron has spread so widely across the world, the travel red list is less effective in slowing the incursion of omicron from abroad, so I can announce today that, while we will maintain our temporary testing measures for international travel, we will be removing all 11 countries from the travel red list, effective from 4 tomorrow morning.
I wish to turn to the details of some of the regulations before the House. Regulation No. 1400 proposes extending the use of face coverings. In October, UKHSA published an updated review of the evidence on the effectiveness of face coverings and concluded that there is good evidence that they can help to reduce the spread of covid-19 when worn in the community. The regulation proposes extending the legal requirement to most indoor settings, including theatres and cinemas. They are not required in places where it would not be practical—for example, in hospitality settings such as cafés, restaurants, pubs, nightclubs or other dance venues, or in exercise facilities such as gyms.
Regulation No. 1416 would mean that anyone over 18 would need to show a negative lateral flow test to get into a limited number of higher-risk settings, unless they were double vaccinated. As I announced to the House yesterday, however, in the light of new data on how vaccines respond to omicron, our intention is that boosters will be required instead of two doses as soon as all adults have had a reasonable chance to get their booster jab.

Clive Lewis: I thank the Secretary of State for being so generous in taking interventions. Does he agree that, if we are to get on the front foot in tackling the pandemic, we have to acknowledge that it is like our house being on fire and dealing with just one room rather than the rest of the house? Surely the TRIPS waiver, which gives other countries across the developing world and beyond the ability to produce the vaccine themselves, to increase the supply at a cost-effective rate and to stop big pharma from excessively profiteering, is the way to get on to the front foot in vaccinating the rest of the world and ensure that new variants do not continue to flourish.

Sajid Javid: As I said in response to an earlier question, in terms of getting vaccines to the developing world, donations through COVAX and bilateral donations are important. I must strongly but respectfully disagree, however, with the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that waiving intellectual property and patent rights will help. That will not help. That will undermine the world’s ability to deal with the pandemic, because it will remove the incentive for pharmaceutical companies to develop these valuable drugs in the first place.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Sajid Javid: I need to make some progress.
As I announced to the House yesterday, in the light of new data on how vaccines respond to omicron, our intention is that boosters will be required instead of two doses as soon as all adults have had a reasonable chance to get their booster jab. I reinforce to hon. Members that the proposal on getting a negative result from a lateral flow test, or not having to do so if you are double vaccinated, is not a vaccine passport.
It is really important to me, as a point of principle, that people have a range of different routes to show how they are eligible, and that is what is before the House today. Those options include showing proof of a negative test for the last 48 hours, proof of vaccination, proof of a medical examination, or evidence of participation in a clinical trial. The regulations cover a small number of settings that present particular risk.

Alexander Stafford: My right hon. Friend knows that I am completely against vaccine passports and mandatory vaccinations. Can he confirm that lateral flow tests will always be used? That would allay my fears and those of my constituents that we are creating a two-tier system with mandatory passports. If lateral flow tests are always used, everyone can have access to all parts of our society.

Sajid Javid: I can give my hon. Friend that confirmation and I am happy to make that really clear. It is vital that there is always an option for a lateral flow test. I would not support a vaccine-only option.

Ben Spencer: In terms of providing proof of a negative lateral flow test, is that possible for someone who does not have access to the internet or a phone? What is the evidentiary requirement?

Sajid Javid: Lateral flow tests are available for everyone. The vast majority of people will have access to phones or through other ways. Once people have taken the lateral flow test and registered the result, perhaps with the help of someone in their family or a friend, they can get printed proof of that by using the 119 service. If there are other ways to improve that, of course we will, but we have found that that is available to the vast majority of people, including those who might not be as familiar with technology.

Alistair Carmichael: A vaccine passport with a lateral flow test alternative is still a vaccine passport. We have seen the use of vaccine passports in other parts of the country, in Scotland and in Wales. What difference have they made to the transmission of omicron in those parts of the country?

Sajid Javid: I will come to that specifically in a moment, but again I have to stress that this is not a vaccine passport. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to see a vaccine passport, he can do that in Scotland or he can go to France or some other countries. The measure is an attempt to reduce risk from covid in a high-risk venue. It is sensible and proportionate and provides several options and flexibilities.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Sajid Javid: I must make some progress. I will take some interventions later.
The regulations—statutory instrument No. 1416—cover a small number of settings that present a particular risk: venues such as nightclubs, indoor events with 500 or more attendees likely to stand and move around, outdoor events with 4,000 or more attendees likely to stand and move around, and all events with 10,000 or more attendees. Those measures come into force tomorrow. We have given a week’s notice of those changes so that venues have time to put arrangements in place. I am pleased that many venues are already using the measures.
We cannot eliminate the risk of covid-19—that is simply not possible, nor should it be tried—but we can reduce it. The proposals offer a pragmatic way of doing that. Under them, people can either show a negative lateral flow test result, meaning that they are less likely to be infectious, or they can be double jabbed, which means that they are less likely to become severely unwell if they are exposed to covid-19.

Ruth Edwards: Many of my constituents have contacted me concerned that the measures today are the first step in further restrictions on social gatherings and businesses. Will my right hon. Friend assure them that that is not the case and that, if we can rescind the measures before 26 January, we will?

Sajid Javid: I think that what I am about to say will give my hon. Friend that assurance. The plans will make high-risk environments safer than they would otherwise be, but all the regulations will be reviewed by 5 January and sunset on 26 January. I emphasise in response to her question that they sunset on 26 January and that even if the Government wanted to do something different and change matters in some way, we would have to come back to the House and seek its approval.

Ben Bradshaw: The Secretary of State is right that the regulations do not provide for vaccine passports. Conservative Back Benchers and the Liberal Democrats are completely wrong about that. I warmly welcome what he said about abolishing the red list. Will he now release all those people who are currently incarcerated in so-called quarantine hotels in inhumane conditions in this country? Will he also get rid of the other extra restrictions he introduced only two weeks ago to try to keep the omicron variant out when it is already here?

Sajid Javid: The point about managed quarantine and those people who are already in it is important. I am told that the practice in the past was to require them to complete their quarantine period, but I understand the importance of the point. I have asked for urgent advice about what that means. I hope to add to that very soon.

Neale Hanvey: One of the things we know about omicron is the significant genetic mutations and changes that have happened to the spike protein. This morning, at the Science and Technology Committee, Kate Bingham, the Government’s vaccine tsar, said that the Government’s decision to pull the plug on the Valneva contract was mistaken. Will the Secretary of State make a commitment today to revisit that, given the specific technologies that exist with a whole-virus vaccine, which Ms Bingham described as “having the edge” over other vaccines, and which would help the distribution of vaccines to the rest of the world?

Sajid Javid: I think the hon. Gentleman will understand that when the Government make decisions on vaccines they take expert advice, most of which comes from the JCVI. We always listen carefully to that advice to make a final decision, but it is coming on a number of occasions and is constantly kept under review.

Karl McCartney: Referring back to the point made by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), it is crazy that people who have been in self-isolation are going to have to remain there due to the 11 countries that have not been removed from the red list. Surely they should not only be released from their incarceration but reimbursed for the astronomical amount of fees they have had to pay.

Sajid Javid: I am very persuaded by what my hon. Friend says. I would love to stand here right now and just say that that is the case, but there are some issues  that need to be resolved, and they are urgently being looked at. I hope that we can say something more on this as a Government, even as early as today. I do understand what he said, for exactly the reasons that he said it, including on reimbursement.
As well as the new measures we are proposing, we are restoring freedoms too, drawing on the defences that we have already built. At the end of last month, this House passed regulations requiring all close contacts of a suspected or confirmed omicron case to self-isolate for 10 days, but given the increasing dominance of omicron, this approach no longer makes sense for public health purposes and nor is it sustainable for the economy. So we are drawing on the testing capacity that we have built to create a new system of daily testing for covid contacts that has started today. Instead of close contacts of confirmed cases or suspected cases having to self-isolate, all vaccinated contacts, irrespective of whether the contact was with an omicron case, will be asked to take lateral flow tests every day for seven days. Regulation No. 1415 allows us to put this plan into action by revoking the omicron-specific provisions for self-isolation.

Steve Brine: The Secretary of State knows that I welcome that. The isolation regs that we passed two weeks ago that I did not support were sinister, and well done to him for getting rid of that. On test and release, though, he will know that many of our constituents—many of mine have contacted me to say this—cannot, for love nor money, get hold of lateral flow tests right now. Could he update the House on whether this problem has been resolved?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend will understand that there has been a huge surge in demand for lateral flow tests, perfectly understandably of course. The situation at present is that the warehouses of the UKHSA have plenty of stock, but the distribution channel has been limited, although it has added to that significantly in recent days, including building on the channels it has with Royal Mail, Amazon and other suppliers, and also opening up more access points other than direct ordering online so that people can pick up tests from far more pharmacies, for example, than they currently can. It is being worked on, and whatever the current situation is, it will be improved very, very quickly. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend.

Barbara Keeley: The Secretary of State is making some vital points about testing and self-isolation, but yesterday I raised a point with him about PCR testing that I would like to come back to. Although the supply of lateral flow tests is important, so is the PCR testing, which is a more reliable gold standard. Today there was a point when it was reported on social media that there were no PCR testing slots available in any region of England. Yesterday I asked him if he would authorise each director of public health across the country to have a float stock of 500 PCR tests they can use to disrupt covid outbreaks and to slow the transmission of omicron. This is a really important point. Only nine directors of public health have that float stock at the moment. Will he take this vital step and authorise it for all the other directors of public health?

Sajid Javid: We are, as the hon. Lady would imagine, working very closely with directors of public health throughout England, whether on testing or other areas. On PCR testing capacity specifically, capacity is usually roughly 600,000 a day, but it is already being expanded to about 800,000 a day, and it will be further expanded. It is important for hon. Members to know that testing is released at different times of day, so if someone checks the system and a test is not available, it might be available in their local area in the next couple of hours—it is not just a day-by-day process. As the process is surged, tests will become much more easily available. It is also important to remind people whenever one can that a PCR test should be used only if someone has symptoms; otherwise, lateral flow tests should be deployed.
Finally, I turn to measures to help keep the health and care system safe for the long term by making vaccination a condition of deployment for more health and social care settings. Across the UK, the overwhelming majority of us have made the positive choice to accept the offer of a vaccination against covid-19, and 91% of NHS staff have already had two doses, but we need that figure to go even higher. Uptake rates vary among health and care organisations and across the country; despite the incredible effort to boost uptake across the country, approximately 94,000 NHS staff are still unvaccinated. It is critical to patient safety that health and care staff get the jab to protect some of the most vulnerable people who are in their care and keep the NHS workforce strong in the wake of omicron.
We made vaccination against covid-19 a condition of deployment in care homes from 11 November this year. Contrary to what some people feared, we are not aware of any care home closures in which vaccination as a condition of deployment has been the primary cause. The regulations that we are putting before the House today will extend that requirement to health and other social care settings.

Sammy Wilson: The Secretary of State pointed out that the capacity of the health service is important and should not be breached. If 9% of staff to date have decided not to be vaccinated and will presumably stick with that decision, how does he expect that that will not reduce the capacity of the health service in future? Is it not a fact that there are already many people staying in hospital because a care home cannot be facilitated owing to lack of staff?

Sajid Javid: The right hon. Gentleman asks a fair question. I will answer precisely that question in just a moment.

David Davis: We know that the vaccines are only 33% effective at reducing omicron infection. We know that the reduction of infectiousness falls dramatically—to zero after 12 weeks, in the case of AstraZeneca. What does the Secretary of State view as better for protecting people from infection: daily lateral flow tests or vaccination?

Sajid Javid: I think both have a role to play. In the NHS and in social care, there is very frequent testing—lateral flow testing, in the case of the NHS, and often PCR testing—but I think vaccination has a role to play. At this point in time, many people still have two doses;  that is rapidly changing. When they have a third dose or their booster dose, that gives them an even higher degree of protection.

Dr Caroline Johnson: I draw attention to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Secretary of State is making a very clear argument for the need to do something; he talks about how a very small proportion of a much larger number of cases could overwhelm the NHS in the way that a larger proportion of a much smaller number of cases might not. However, we know that the NHS has a huge backlog of people awaiting diagnostic and operative procedures. What evidence does he have that mandating vaccines for NHS staff will help? Given that we know that vaccination does not particularly reduce transmission, and given what he has said about the importance of choice, why does he not think that it would be reasonable to offer medical staff and nursing staff the option of daily testing instead of vaccination, should they make that choice?

Sajid Javid: In coming to this decision, we held an extensive consultation with thousands of responses. Importantly, we also consulted with the NHS itself; as I shall touch on in a moment, it has weighed up the decision. My hon. Friend is right if she is suggesting that there may be some people who choose to leave the NHS rather than stay and be vaccinated—that is a choice for them to make, but there is also an issue of patient safety. That is also the view of the NHS. As I said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), testing can be used alongside, but vaccinations help as well.
I want to talk about settings.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Let us allow the Secretary of State to finish his speech. He has some important information to put before the House, and I now want to hear that information.

Sajid Javid: The settings to which this measure would apply include, of course, NHS hospitals, and GP and dental practices, regardless of whether a provider is publicly or privately funded. Anyone working in health or social care activities regulated by the Care Quality Commission will need to be vaccinated against covid-19 if their role will involve direct contact with patients, apart from a few limited exemptions—for example, for medical reasons. The definition of “fully vaccinated” is currently two doses, but we are keeping this under review, and of course I urge everyone who works in the NHS and social care to get their boosters too.
As we have just heard, concerns have been raised about the impact of the measures on the workforce, especially during these winter months, although even before the pandemic workplace policies were in place requiring the hepatitis B vaccine for those who have to perform certain clinical procedures. We are already allowing a 12-week grace period to give people the chance to make the positive choice to get protected, and we are aiming to start enforcing these requirements from 1 April next year—subject, of course, to the will of the House.

John Stevenson: If a member of the NHS decides that they do not want to be vaccinated, will they be given a redundancy payment; and if not, why not? But if they are and that is the policy, how much would it cost the NHS, and would that be a good use of taxpayers’ money?

Sajid Javid: I believe that it would not be classed as redundancy because it would not be redundancy; that job would not have become redundant. If an individual chooses not to get vaccinated, that is of course a decision for them to make. The way in which this should be, and no doubt will be, implemented by the NHS is that getting vaccinated should always be a positive choice. The NHS has put in place a number of methods to try to provide the information that people want to share, including through one-to-one consultations and providing more information especially for those who may have received misinformation. The outcome when a similar measure was implemented for care homes was that many staff—when provided with the right, positive information —chose to be vaccinated, rather than to leave their jobs.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Sajid Javid: I must make progress. I am sorry.

Eleanor Laing: Order. The Secretary of State is right; he must make progress, as other people need to speak now. Please let us allow the Secretary of State to conclude his speech.

Sajid Javid: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Today, the chief executive of NHS England has written to me, reinforcing the importance of getting the jab in the interests of patient and staff safety. I will be placing a copy of this letter in the Libraries of both Houses today. Despite the concerns that some people have raised, I am pleased to say that we have already seen a net increase of more than 55,000 NHS staff vaccinated with a first dose since we consulted on the policy in September.
Although I firmly believe that these measures are a proportionate way of protecting those at greatest risk, I know that hon. Members have questions about whether we would extend them further. Let me say clearly to the House today—once and for all—that although we have seen plans for universal mandatory vaccination in some countries in Europe, I will never support them in this country. I firmly believe that getting vaccinated should be a positive decision. I assure the House that the Government have no intention of extending the condition of deployment to any other workforces or of introducing mandatory vaccination more widely.
The regulations that we are debating today are not measures that any of us would like to be putting in place, but they are measures that the situation demands, because when the facts change, our response must change too. As we look ahead to a winter with omicron in our midst, the measures before the House today will fortify our national defences and guard the gains that we have all made against this deadly virus. I commend these regulations to the House.

Eleanor Laing: Before I call the shadow Secretary of State, it might be helpful for the House to know there will be an immediate time limit of five minutes on Back-Bench speeches, which will reduce later in the afternoon.

Wes Streeting: I begin by acknowledging that there are sincere and deeply held views on both sides of this debate and, indeed, on both sides of the House. I respect those who take a different view from the one I will be outlining on behalf of the Opposition, but we owe it to our country to have a debate worthy of the finest traditions of this House.
In the light of comments made in recent days by at least one Conservative MP comparing these measures to the situation in Germany during the 1930s, it should not be for me, as shadow Secretary of State, to point out that we are not living in the 1930s and that the Secretary of State and his team are not Nazis. On their shoulders rest the health of our nation and the responsibility to protect our NHS. Indeed, it is a responsibility we all share. They need our support, and they are owed better treatment than they have received from some on their own side in recent days and even this afternoon.
No matter how dysfunctional the Conservative party has become, the country can rely on Labour. We will act in the national interest, as we have throughout the pandemic, by putting public health before party politics and supporting the motions under consideration this afternoon. We do not do so lightly. Throughout the pandemic we have asked the British people to make big sacrifices to support the national effort against coronavirus—sacrifices that have impacted on lives, livelihoods and liberties. Whenever this House considers such measures, we owe it to the British people to explain why they are necessary. We believe these measure are a necessary response to the omicron threat, necessary to protect ourselves, necessary to protect the ones we love and necessary to protect our NHS.
We cannot yet be sure about the severity of the omicron variant, but we can be certain it is spreading, and spreading fast—faster than any other variant. Even if a smaller proportion of omicron victims are hospitalised, the rapid advance of the virus through the population could see large numbers of people admitted to hospital during the months in which the NHS is under greatest pressure. There should be no complacency about this. The winter months present the greatest pressures on the NHS in any normal year and, as we know, this is far from a normal year. The NHS is contending with winter pressures, a serious backlog, the delta variant and now the omicron variant. When people invoke the story of the boy who cried wolf, of the warnings that came before but never materialised, they should remember that, in the end, there was a wolf.
Many of the challenges facing the NHS are understandable, given the unprecedented challenges of the covid-19 pandemic, but we have to be honest and acknowledge that confronting these challenges has been made much harder because we went into the pandemic with NHS waiting lists at a record 4.5 million, 100,000 staff vacancies and 112,000 vacancies in social care. It is not just that the Government did not fix the roof while the sun was shining; they dismantled the roof and removed the floorboards.
Now the NHS is locked in a race against time: a race against the fastest variant of covid-19 we have seen to date and a race to get as many people boosted as possible before the end of this month. The Opposition   support the Government in that task, and let me say on behalf of all of us in the Labour party to every NHS worker, every GP, every pharmacist, every public health official in local government, every member of our armed forces and every volunteer stepping up to meet this enormous task that we are with them 100%. If anyone can do it, they can.

John Stevenson: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Labour party did not support mandatory vaccinations for care workers but has changed its mind for NHS workers?

Wes Streeting: I will outline our position on that, but the hon. Gentleman will have to be patient because I will come on to that later in my speech.
We need to buy the NHS and its helpers some time. The measures put forward for consideration today are an attempt to do just that by slowing the spread of the virus whilst trying to protect Christmas so that people can enjoy the festive season safely, by limiting our interactions in the workplace, by wearing face coverings in settings where the virus finds it easier to spread, by testing before we attend large indoor gatherings, and by getting behind the booster roll-out to ensure that everyone is protected.

Toby Perkins: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we are all very conscious of how important this time of year is to the hospitality sector, but does he agree that the greatest threat to the hospitality sector is not restrictions of the type that are before us today, but the sense that the virus is out of control, and widespread cancellations across the sector? So these restrictions enable the hospitality sector to survive in this really difficult time, but also enable us to take proportionate steps to ensure that the spike does not get out of control.

Wes Streeting: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, one of our primary reasons for supporting the measures for consideration today is that we on the Labour Benches support business, and we want to support it through a particularly difficult time, when normally trading would be at its busiest.
The goal in the end must of course be to learn to live with the virus. That means effective vaccination, antiviral treatments, and public health measures that have minimal impacts on our lives, our jobs and our businesses. So let me take each of the measures in turn and explain why Labour supports them, and no doubt take interventions.
First, on mask wearing, no one enjoys wearing a mask—I certainly do not, but it is nothing compared with the costs that more draconian restrictions have on our lives, livelihoods and liberties. Masks are simply a price worth paying for our freedom to go out and live our lives during this pandemic. They are proven to be effective, and not only that, but in times of rising infections, when people are feeling increasingly cautious, it is vital to our economy that people feel safe boarding a busy bus or entering a crowded theatre. In our view, the Government should never have got rid of the requirement to wear masks in those settings, but we know why they did. We have counted, in recent weeks, hon. Members on the Government Benches not wearing masks. I am glad to see that compliance has risen somewhat considerably. We know that the Prime Minister   no longer has the authority to lead his own party, but I am grateful that Members on the Government Benches have at least listened to their Health Secretary.
Turning to the vaccine pass, and testing to enter nightclubs and large events, I welcome the fact that the Government have listened to representations from Labour and responded. The Labour party has argued consistently against vaccine passports and insisted on people having the option of showing a negative test. Further, we argued that such passes should not be required for access to essential services. On both counts the Government have listened and amended the proposals, and we can support the measure before us today. It is not a vaccine passport. It is, in effect, a default requirement to show a negative test to enter venues where the virus is most likely to spread, with an opt-out available to those with an NHS covid pass.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: My hon. Friend makes a very good point on that. Is not the reality that if we did not introduce these measures there would be a danger that our night-time economy—pubs, venues and other events—would have to shut completely? So this pass is actually a pass for freedom to allow us to continue to enjoy activities that otherwise would be shut down, and the libertarians opposite should be welcoming it, not bemoaning it.

Wes Streeting: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Let me be clear: we in the Labour party support this approach because we support British business. This is about giving people the confidence to go out and about despite the presence of omicron.

Neale Hanvey: I thank the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. I wonder whether he shares my concern about reports over the past couple of days that there has been an absence, or a lack, of lateral flow devices to be sent out for testing. What is also alarming is the lack of support for the domestic diagnostics market and the manufacturers in this country of lateral flow devices that are much more accurate and reliable and superior to the current Government lateral flow devices. If these devices are to make a difference, we must have the best quality devices in place.

Wes Streeting: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Of course, in order for this measure to work as effectively as we would wish, there has to be an adequate supply of lateral flow tests. I heard what the Secretary of State said yesterday about the availability of testing, but it is no good if the tests are in the warehouse; they need to be available to people where they need them, when they need them. We have had supply issues and those really do need to be resolved, not least in the light of other measures, which I will come to shortly.

Sammy Wilson: Does the shadow Secretary of State not accept that rather than giving confidence to people, these measures, and the background against which they have been introduced, have actually reduced confidence? We have predictions of 75,000 deaths and we are telling people that they cannot go to venues unless they have certain tests; the experience in Northern Ireland is that the hospitality industry has already lost millions of pounds in orders coming up to the Christmas period because people are afraid to go out.

Wes Streeting: I will say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is my understanding from dispatches from the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle)—of course, Northern Ireland is ahead of England on this—that he had a perfectly nice time out last night enjoying the best hospitality that the people of Northern Ireland have to offer. I think people are drawing confidence from this. Let me also say that we should draw on the experience of other countries. Look at countries with strict covid passport rules, such as Italy, France and Denmark; all have seen their retail and recreation sectors fare far better than those here in the UK because there has been consistency and confidence.
With passes and lateral flow tests, venues can operate at 100% capacity, punters can be confident that they are safe to attend and enjoy themselves, at this time of year the show goes on, and everyone stays in a job. Without these measures, with rising infections and more hospitalisations, we would risk seeing the Government forced to impose more draconian measures on these sectors, shutting down our cultural sector and collapsing the economy once again. I think we should be confident about this.
Let me address the tension—it is a reasonable question —in the message that people should work from home if they can but that they can go out. I make no apology for trying to safeguard social interactions between people, their families and their friends at Christmas time. I also make no apology whatsoever for supporting our hospitality industry, which has been battered by the pandemic and which enjoys our support—our confident support, our full-throated support, and our support at the table and the bar in the coming days.

William Wragg: Can we take it from that that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of extending the certification, or vaccine passport, to all venues?

Wes Streeting: For now, we think the Government have struck the right balance. The measure is limited to nightclubs and larger venues. However, as the Secretary of State knows, we listen to the chief medical officer, we listen to the chief scientific adviser, we listen to the scientific advisory group for emergencies, we listen to the NHS and we make decisions based on evidence. If ever the Government want to come forward with further proposals, we will consider them in a genuinely bipartisan way and we will act in what we believe to be the national interest. I do not think anyone would expect less of us.

Munira Wilson: With the covid passes, there is the option of using a lateral flow test or double vaccination. Does the hon. Member recognise that double vaccination, which many people will use, gives a very false sense of security? We know that someone can be vaccinated and still transmit. Most of the people we know getting covid at the moment have already been vaccinated. Double vaccination is not very effective, and it will give a real false sense of security.

Wes Streeting: I think the hon. Member should look at the evidence from our friends on the continent, which is that this approach not only works in giving people confidence to go out and enjoy themselves, but  encourages people to take up vaccination. On that basis, I think the Liberal Democrats ought to reconsider their position.

Holly Mumby-Croft: The shadow Secretary of State has obviously spoken to lots of people and he is really concerned about transmission. Could he tell the House the Labour party’s view on how much transmission is reduced by two vaccinations?

Wes Streeting: I direct the hon. Member to the SAGE advice, which is that there is some evidence—I would not put it any stronger than that—on the reduction of transmission. As I say, our primary reason for supporting the measure is to give people the confidence to continue to access hospitality and an added incentive to take up vaccination. On both those tests, our friends on the continent have shown us a better, effective way forward. I dare Government Members to suggest that France, for example, given its history and culture, is not a country that values liberty strongly.
Let me move on, because I must make progress. For the passes to work, people must be able to access tests easily and readily. We cannot continue with the situation in which tests are out of stock and unavailable to the public who are required to take them—not if covid passes are required to work and not if close contacts of covid cases are to be able to take the daily tests required. This morning, the Government’s website showed PCR tests unavailable throughout England, and the only region where lateral flow tests are available today is the south-east. We need immediately to resolve such technical issues and the practical issues of test delivery. The measure on daily testing is the one measure that seems to have united the House in agreement, so the Secretary of State really needs to get a grip and ensure we have access to the tests we need.
On the flexibility to work from home, we have called for workers to be given that flexibility for months and we support the guidance for them to do so where possible. I have addressed the contradiction in respect of people working from home and going out to Christmas parties. We want to protect people’s ability to enjoy Christmas safely this year, which is one of the key arguments for the measure. By limiting people’s interactions at work without disrupting their ability to do their work, we thereby lower contacts and infections and hope to preserve people’s ability to go ahead with the social interactions that they cherish most at this time of year.
As the Prime Minister rather clumsily and unhelpfully tried last week to open a “national conversation” on mandatory vaccinations for the country at large, I wish to make it crystal clear that we do not support mandatory vaccinations in general. I welcome what the Secretary of State has said this afternoon—not the first time he has had to clean up the Prime Minister’s mess. We believe the vaccine is safe and effective and that everyone should choose to have it. I cannot give any stronger endorsement than to say that I have had my first two jabs and will be having my booster on Thursday. I would not take the vaccine or recommend it to others unless I believed it was safe.
I recognise that mandatory vaccination for NHS staff is a difficult issue for colleagues from all parties and in our NHS, but the NHS has asked us for it, patients want it and we are persuaded that the threat of omicron  makes it even more important for staff to be vaccinated to protect themselves and to protect the public they serve.

Daniel Poulter: I draw the House’s attention to my declaration, as a practising NHS doctor, in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I commend the hon. Gentleman for the consensual way he is approaching today’s debate and for the many points he has made with which I agree. On mandatory vaccinations for NHS staff, before I could train in medicine I had to have a Bacillus Calmette-Guérin injection for tuberculosis and a hepatitis injection; otherwise, I could not have practised medicine. It was about protecting my patients. It is the duty of all healthcare professionals to put their patients first, which is why it is absolutely right that they should have mandatory covid vaccinations. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

Wes Streeting: I strongly endorse what the hon. Gentleman said. Infection control is going to be a real challenge this winter because of the nature of the omicron variant. By ensuring that the NHS workforce is fully vaccinated, we will protect not only patients but staff, who already put themselves in harm’s way enough. As the hon. Gentleman, who speaks with real knowledge and expertise, said, this is not a new precedent: NHS staff are already required to inoculate themselves against other diseases. It is a professional duty. The NHS clearly believes that the April deadline gives sufficient time to persuade the workforce to protect themselves, their patients and their loved ones without there being an exodus of staff.

Julian Lewis: I supported the requirement for people working with vulnerable people in care homes to be vaccinated or, if they would not be vaccinated, to be removed from direct contact with vulnerable people. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me—I did not get a chance to ask the Secretary of State—whether this proposal for members of the NHS who have not been vaccinated will affect only frontline staff who interact with the vulnerable, or whether it will apply to people throughout the NHS who might have no contact with the vulnerable? That will affect the way I cast my vote today.

Wes Streeting: I hope I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that it will not be a case of saying to people, “If you don’t take up the jab, that’s it—you’re out.” There will also be the opportunity for redeployment to other roles where vaccination would not be mandatory. I hope that gives him the reassurance that he needs.

Barbara Keeley: My hon. Friend is handling his speech in just the right way. There is a balance of rights here, and patients have a right to be treated by staff who are fully vaccinated to protect them. I have a constituent who is clinically extremely vulnerable. She contacted me to say that she was not willing to go to her necessary hospital appointments once she realised that the hospital staff were not fully vaccinated. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to think of that pretty large number of clinically extremely vulnerable people in this country?

Wes Streeting: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
We have heard the arguments in outline: this is about protecting staff and patients; it is not a new precedent; and there is a professional obligation, which makes it slightly different from the experience in the social care workforce. I will come on to talk about what the Government need to do. Those are broadly the arguments—

Simon Hoare: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Wes Streeting: If the hon. Gentleman just lets me make this point, I will certainly give way.
Those are broadly the arguments, but I would ask Members on both sides of the House to think about those NHS staff who go to work every day feeling unsafe because their colleagues are not vaccinated. If that is not persuasive enough, I ask them to think about how they would feel if a loved one were treated in a clinical setting or care home by an unvaccinated member of staff through whom they contracted covid and, with it, serious illness or worse. If I lost a loved one through serious illness in those circumstances, I am not sure that I would be very forgiving about the decisions made by Members of this House.

Anthony Mangnall: I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but that is not what the results of the survey of NHS staff in the healthcare and social care workforce found, which was that 55% of people in the NHS were against this proposal. How does he respond to that?

Wes Streeting: I have no doubt whatsoever that opinion in the workforce is divided. I do not dispute that, and it is divided partly because people resent the mandate. Ultimately, however, it comes down to this. It is not just about the broad arguments I have outlined or the specific cases we might be confronted with without this protection; we have to ask whether we as a House think it is acceptable for people working in health and social care, who have a duty of care to their patients, to say, “I am making a choice to put them at greater risk. I am working against the very principles that encouraged me to sign up to my vocation in the first place.” That is why, on balance, I think it is the right measure, but I will come on to talk about the way in which we need to take the workforce with us and what we need to do ahead of April.

Andy McDonald: My hon. Friend is setting out his response to these proposals with great care. On the vexed issue of mandatory vaccinations, does he acknowledge that 97% of those in my trust have been properly vaccinated and that a significant proportion of the remaining 3% are new starters making their journey towards proper vaccination? It is therefore not that clear. We have heard the responses from the British Medical Association, Unison, the Royal College of Nursing, Unite, the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, the GMB and the Royal College of General Practitioners, who are opposed to making vaccination mandatory and prefer persuasion to coercion. Does he not think that we should be adopting that approach?

Wes Streeting: That is a helpful intervention from my hon. Friend. Let me be clear: I absolutely acknowledge the views that have been put forward by the royal colleges and by staff trade unions. Government ought  to take them seriously and work heavily with them in this next phase, where there is still a window for persuasion. I also point the Government to the success that the Welsh Labour Government have had in persuading the workforce; there is much to learn and time available, and we have to work in a spirit of partnership.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Wes Streeting: I will say more about that in a just a moment, because the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), at the back, has been very patient.

Simon Hoare: I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. May I endorse and welcome what he said at the start of his speech with regard to comments about the Nazis? I called that out yesterday and he was right to do so at the Dispatch Box. I was looking through my inbox from the start of the pandemic and lockdown, and almost every person working in the care sector or the NHS in my constituency was saying, perfectly legitimately, “When the vaccine is available, we must be at the front of the queue, because we are dealing with the vulnerable and it is our duty to get vaccinated.” I do not think that has changed, and I think he is absolutely right, as is the Secretary of State, to say that those caring for the most vulnerable in society should, to try to reduce the risk that they face, be vaccinated.

Wes Streeting: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have a big effort to boost the booster this month and we have to boost the workforce as well, and make sure that people are supported.

Angela Eagle: rose—

Kim Johnson: rose—

Wes Streeting: This is a difficult decision—two Members from the same region—but my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), right in the corner, has been very patient, so I will give way to her. I will then come to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle).

Kim Johnson: I appreciate my hon. Friend giving way. He is making an excellent speech; however, the British Medical Association has identified some serious concerns about mandatory vaccines—the fact that we have a chronically under-staffed NHS. Does he believe that this policy is likely to have a significant impact and cause more harm than good?

Wes Streeting: That is such an important point, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making it. There is a reassurance I would like to offer her and a call to action that I would like to issue to the Government. The reassurance is that there were concerns about what would happen to the social care workforce, which very much influenced Labour’s position on that statutory instrument at the time, but we did not see the collapse in the social care workforce that was warned of and there was lots of evidence that there was a positive impact on take-up.
I say to the Secretary of State and his team that if they are asking the health and social care workforce to do their duty as professionals, the Government must show greater respect to their professional voice and experience—on pay, conditions and workload. It is often said that the NHS runs on goodwill, so I would like to see the Government showing greater goodwill in return and engaging with the royal colleges and staff trade unions, not just on the plan for vaccine roll-out to their members, but on the debate about the future of our health and social care systems and the big workforce challenge.
On vaccinations, there is still precious time to do the work on persuasion. I have met the trade unions in recent days, including a great meeting with Unison yesterday—I should declare that I am a member of Unison. Unison had some really helpful advice and practical feedback about the kind of conversations with occupational health that are making a big impact in giving staff the confidence to choose to take the vaccine well ahead of the deadline. Of course we would much rather persuasion than compulsion.

Marie Rimmer: In St Helens, 99% of care home staff are vaccinated, and at Whiston Hospital, the best one in the country, 91% have had the first vaccine, 89% the second vaccine and 64% the booster. That has all been done with persuasion, not with the threat of the sack. These people are in a vocation. It is not just a job to them; they believe in the patients. We must not get to the stage where we are threatening people. The GPs have even been involved in persuading the care home staff. Everyone has been involved for some considerable time and that is the way to do it—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Let me just make this clear: more than 40 people wish to speak this afternoon and if people make interventions, it is simply not fair on those at the end of the list who will be trying to speak later on. The hon. Lady is only one of many. The shadow Secretary of State is being very fair, as was the Secretary of State, in answering all the questions, but I must ask people to be reasonable.

Wes Streeting: It may have been a speech rather than an intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I thought it was a very good one, and I welcome what my hon. Friend has said.

Angela Eagle: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that anti-vaxxers are using vicious and very effective psychological propaganda to upset and worry people who may be vaccine hesitant, particularly about issues with fertility, whether the vaccine is halal and all those things? Does he agree with me that the Government should do much more to counter this very vicious and damaging propaganda?

Wes Streeting: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. This comes back to the point I made about the Government engaging with the staff trade unions and the royal colleges. Whatever their policy position on having mandatory vaccination, the Secretary of State will find in them willing allies who want to help the Government to persuade colleagues to engage with them and to deal with some of these dangerous conspiracy  theories that are knocking public confidence, and creating real fear and anxiety entirely without basis. When the Minister for the Cabinet Office concludes later, I hope that he will set out how the Government plan to engage and that he will give an undertaking to work with the staff trade unions and the royal colleges, because that would do so much to achieve the objectives that we all share, but also to raise morale in the workforce, who often feel that they are slogging their guts out for the Government, but do not get the hearing they deserve.

Bob Seely: The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech, and I apologise for interrupting him, but on a point of science, will he just accept that he has got it a little bit wrong? Someone having the vaccine does not stop them spreading it; it just makes it much less likely that it will harm them badly. Someone can have the vaccine and still spread it, and to imply otherwise is just wrong.

Wes Streeting: The hon. Gentleman has called repeatedly from a sedentary position that I do not know the science, but I have said nothing of any sort to contradict the points he has just made.
With respect to Conservative Members, particularly those who oppose these measures, what they are missing is that it is indisputable that the booster does provide greater protection than the first and second jabs, that vaccination—full stop—provides better protection, and that if we are talking about NHS pressures and workforce pressures, the biggest danger is that the virus sweeps through the health and social care workforce, knocks a load of people out in the middle of the busiest period for the NHS, and then the system topples over. I do not know why it has to be explained again and again to Conservative Members that the objective is to protect the NHS and to stop it toppling over at a critical time. The points about the severity of the virus and the efficacy of the vaccine in preventing transmission or serious illness are largely secondary. We know that the virus is spreading, and doing so rapidly, and we know that if it rips through the health and social care workforce, that is the biggest risk to the NHS—that is what will topple it over. Conservative Members’ constituents will not thank them one bit if they allow that to happen.

Clive Efford: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and putting his case very forcefully. On the issue of coercion versus persuasion and involving trade unions and the royal colleges in NHS managers taking the staff with them, what was not respected by the Secretary of State when he was asked about redundancies is that this is a retrospective change in people’s terms and conditions, and even people who are vaccinated will be resistant to the change being imposed upon them. We have to go forward carefully and take the staff with us. Will my hon. Friend urge the Government to work with the royal colleges and trade unions to take this forward?

Wes Streeting: My hon. Friend makes such an important point. Going back to the staff surveys, particularly given that the overwhelming majority of staff are vaccinated, it is not that they do not want their colleagues to be vaccinated, but that they have concerns about the way in which the Government are going about this. We accepted from the Government and from NHS England a very clear view that omicron has raised the stakes in this regard, which has had a big bearing on our position.  It is very difficult for me and my colleagues on the Labour Benches to put ourselves in a position that is on the other side of the argument from the NHS and from the public, but the point about engagement is really important. The Government must work with and take the workforce with them. It is not good enough for us to just clap for the NHS, or clap for carers; we must work in partnership with them and respect that these are people who have given their lives to public service and caring for others. They do care. They will instinctively be on the right side, but they just need some persuasion, some patience and genuine engagement and that is where the Government have gone slightly wrong.

Graham Stringer: My hon. Friend started off his speech in an excellent way and has got better as he has gone through it. I say that, but I will almost certainly not be in the same Lobby as him on some of the votes this evening. There is a general point to the specific point that he is making on vaccines, which is that the Government should be clear, explicit and transparent on every issue that they raise if they want to take with them people who are not just worried about vaccines but worried about this whole affair. Repeatedly, the Government have refused to do a cost-benefit analysis on the impact of their policies. We have before us now a number of statutory instruments without impact assessments. Does he agree that that information should be available?

Wes Streeting: Let me say to my hon. Friend that, in his intervention, he started off well, dipped in the middle and then got better at the end. He made some absolutely fair points about impact assessments and transparency. In fact, I can see the Vaccines Minister waving impact assessments at me, so I am sure that she will make them available to my hon. Friend.
It comes back, as we have discussed at various points today and previously in relation to these sorts of restrictions and measures—it is how I began, and will begin to close, my contribution—to how we really cannot be complacent when it comes to public support, public compliance and public consent for the measures that we are considering. We know that we have asked so much of the British people and they have played their part. We also know that recent events have dented their trust and confidence and their willingness to comply, because they have seen No.10 saying one thing and doing another. That makes it even more important that, when we discuss measures that impact on people’s lives, livelihoods and liberties, we have these sorts of exchanges, look over the evidence rigorously, test each other’s assumptions and come to a conclusion.
With some of the exchanges that we have heard today, people across the country on both sides of these arguments can at least take some reassurance from the fact that, when these matters are under consideration, we do take them seriously. The Government could do a little better sometimes on bringing measures forward in advance of their implementation and on setting out the rationale and argument, and not just assuming that, because measures have been supported by the public previously, they will be supported today. I think we have public support for the measures under consideration this afternoon, but we should not be complacent about it. That is why it is right that we spend so much time exploring these issues.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Wes Streeting: I shall take one or two more interventions and then I shall conclude.

Seema Malhotra: My hon. Friend is making a very important point: we need to make decisions on the evidence that is available. Does he agree that having the debate today and passing these measures tonight is urgent? We have heard that the doubling rate of omicron is shortening. If we are to protect the public, our families, our communities, and the NHS in the run-up to Christmas and beyond, these measures need to pass today.

Wes Streeting: I agree with my hon. Friend, and particularly in this city. The reproduction rate of this virus is shortening every day and the numbers that the Secretary of State set out in his opening remarks should concentrate minds before people walk through the Division Lobby this afternoon. Fun though it might be to see the Government in hot water and struggling in votes, it is not in the national interest and that should be the thing at the forefront of our minds.

Sara Britcliffe: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one thing that will reassure Members across the House is a commitment from the Government at the Dispatch Box that, if further restrictions were to come into play, a vote will be had in this House?

Wes Streeting: I agree with the hon. Lady. I appreciate that she is a newer Member of the House but I dare say she watched our proceedings before being elected, and we cannot have spent so much time talking about parliamentary sovereignty only to then throw it out of the window in the next Parliament, so her point is well made. The shadow public health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), and I have already agreed: he will bring the dinner, I will bring the pudding, and we will see if the Commons shop is doing crackers on discount if we meet over Christmas.
Finally, and seriously, we think there are areas where the Government can go further without impacting on people’s lives, livelihoods and liberties and should do so. On ventilation in schools, young people have borne the brunt of this pandemic and we owe it to them, to their education and to the staff who support them to make sure that their schools are properly ventilated. They cannot wait until October next year for a review to be published; we need action now. In winding up, can the Minister for the Cabinet Office say something about that? On jabs for young people, the Christmas holidays seem to us to be an ideal time to get young people vaccinated, so when do the Government think we can see action on that front?
Finally, on statutory sick pay, as we have heard very powerfully from my hon. Friends, there are people out there who are forced to choose between doing the right thing by their families and doing the right thing by public health because they simply cannot afford to isolate at home. So we again implore the Government to act by making sure that higher statutory sick pay is available to people immediately so that they can afford to do the right thing.
We have not played games with these votes: we are not exploiting the divisions in the Conservative party to inflict defeat on the Government for the sake of scoring political points. The threat facing the country is too serious and Labour takes our duty to the country seriously. The Tories may be in disarray but the public can rely on Labour to keep the country safe, to do the right thing and to support these measures today, and we trust the British people to do the same.

Peter Bottomley: I think the House will want to acknowledge the power of the speech that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), has just given. We wish his predecessor well. One thing we can say about the hon. Gentleman is that his voice carries very well around this Chamber.
The Government are right to ask for support for these regulations. I am glad the Opposition will in general be supporting them, and I will do so as well. If the public health risk increases, we must ask what changes to regulations are proportionate and appropriate.
It may have been missed by some who have written to me, but some of the regulations are relaxations; others are not. The regulations are intended to make sure that some places can stay open if people abide by sensible precautions.
One constituent who has written to me today says he and his family and many of his friends will not go to places of public congregation because too many people are not vaccinated or showing they are not infected by the virus. That may be a minority view expressed, but I think it is one that is held in the hearts and minds of many of our constituents.
To those who have said an impact assessment has not been made, I say that it has and it has been published; those who invigilate assessments do not think it is adequate, but that is a side point. Annex B on pages 54 and 55 shows the proportion of people by age in the national health service who have been vaccinated.
We must recognise that one reason why half of those who are unvaccinated are aged under 40 is that the opportunity for vaccination came later for them than for those who are older. But if they do not think it matters to them, I would say to them that it does, for the reasons that our hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), the practising doctor, gave. When caring for people who are vulnerable—obviously, people in medical care are, in the same way as those in social care—the most we can do to protect ourselves also has the impact of protecting them. If in doubt, get the protection that the vaccine and the booster give.
I was going to make a rather longer speech, but I will stop now because many hon. Members want to contribute, many of whom will disagree with me. I will respect what they have to say, but I will say very clearly that I back the Government in these regulations.

Graham Stringer: As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was trying to help you with the intervention by withdrawing from the list, but I am grateful to be on top of the list for the Labour Benches.
I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) the Leader of the Opposition when he says that the Prime Minister is a threat to public health. I think that that is absolutely right. I draw a different conclusion from my hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench on how we should respond: not by being irresponsible but by taking a look at the way the Government have dealt with the whole of the covid crisis from the very beginning to what they continue to do.
I am a member of the Science and Technology Committee. Together with the Health and Social Care Committee we produced a 150-page report. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members have had the time to read it. They may not agree with its conclusions, but it contains very valuable information. The key point, which a lot of the press missed, was not that the Government followed the science on the issue but that they got into a groupthink with the scientific advisers and did not challenge them. They assumed that science was something handed down on tablets of stone, whereas it is not. It is a process and it needs challenging by those of us who have responsibility in this House for making laws and policies, and by other scientists. We seem to be repeating that process.
My Committee had as a witness this morning Susan Hopkins. Let me say that at best—if I can use a word somebody else used—the advice we were getting from her as an adviser was opaque. The information we were getting was opaque when it should be transparent. This time last week, the Deputy Prime Minister stood up and said there was no plan to go to plan B. Some 36 hours later, we were starting plan B. Why was that? What was the scientific advice given?
We were told fairly definitively that no such advice was given to change the view. What changed the view was that the Prime Minister was in a state of crisis and under pressure from his own Back Benchers and everybody else. That is not a sensible way to make decisions. It is not a sensible way to make decisions to put forward statutory instruments that say—the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) was waving a sheet about, which may or may not have been the impact assessment—that no impact assessment has been done.

Steven Baker: I have in my hand the impact assessment for vaccination as a condition of deployment in health and care providers—I was not able to get in earlier. I feel confident that the Front Benchers will know that the estimate is that 88,000 people will leave the health sector, 73,000 will leave the NHS, 15,000 will leave the independent health sector, and 35,000 workers will leave domiciliary care. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is reason enough to vote against imposing this on the nation?

Graham Stringer: That is very interesting. It is also interesting that papers circulated by the Vote Office said there was no impact assessment. That does not impress me.
The point I was just about to make—I do not know if other hon. and right hon. Members have noticed this—is that the 355-page Act passed at the start of the epidemic, the Coronavirus Act 2020, is barely being used. The Government could have used the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 to bring in some of the restrictions that they  have placed—maybe necessarily, maybe unnecessarily—on people’s freedoms. The difference between the 2004 Act and the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 is quite simply that much less scrutiny is available under the latter. Once regulations are passed, if there is not a sunset clause, they last. The Government should not be rewarded for unnecessarily using tough authoritarian legislation when other legislation was available that would have allowed more scrutiny.
The Government have refused to give information. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) began his speech by saying that different people have different views and weigh the factors of civil liberties and health in different ways. That is absolutely right, but the Government will not tell us the costs and benefits of their policies. We now know that three quarters of a million people have failed to be tested for cancer. This is not a win-win situation. Cancer patients who are yet to be tested will eventually die because of the decisions being taken, because services are not available; some people will die of covid.
To come to the right decisions, this House needs all the information available, but it is not coming from the NHS and it is not coming from Government Ministers. That is why I will not give the Prime Minister the benefit of my support for the way he has arranged to respond to this covid crisis.

Desmond Swayne: On a typical winter’s day, between 200 and 350 people will die of flu. Do we hide behind our masks? Do we lurk at home, working from home? Do we demand that people provide their bona fides before going to a venue? Do we require people to be vaccinated as a condition of keeping their jobs?
The question whether the measures before the House today are proportionate comes down to a matter of opinion. Do we take seriously some of the extraordinary extrapolations that we have been given, particularly given the previous record? The fact is that those are things that might take place, and we have to balance them against the known costs and damage to enterprise, economy and society.
In the end, it comes down to a matter of opinion—a matter of our prejudice. Typically, we are capable of organising our lives and making those decisions for ourselves. We decide what our risk appetite is and what we are or are not prepared to encounter. Notwithstanding the carnage on our roads, which is certainly killing more people than covid at the moment, some of us still decide to drive. It is a matter of opinion.
It comes down to letting loose the dogs of war—getting the fear factor into it and getting the officials, the members of SAGE, Independent SAGE and SPI-M and all those who speak in their private capacity out there twisting the fear lever. What about the Health Protection Agency? What Stalinist minds thought up that nomenclature? Get them out there, twisting the fear button, and by and large you will get the reaction that you want: people will crave more enforcement and fiercer measures to protect them from the great danger that is out there. Let hospitality be just collateral damage—let the industry endure the deluge of cancellations at what should be its most productive time. That is the situation that we have delivered.
The Government, having administered this Ministry of fear, are absolutely complicit with their officials and organisations who have designed and delivered it. In doing so, they have abandoned any principle of social democracy or liberal democracy, absolutely beyond anything that we have endured in recent living memory, in the history of this pandemic. As a consequence, having abandoned what might have been their ideology, they are rudderless and so much more at risk of the opinions and predictions of the advisers to whom they are in hock.

Caroline Lucas: I have just come from a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus. We were given a shocking set of presentations, about which the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) will say more shortly.
I want to bring three key messages from that meeting of scientists and NHS professionals. The NHS is already beyond full stretch, and some said that it was at breaking point. They pointed out that we are not South Africa, which started its omicron wave from a low level of cases. We are starting it on top of a rising number of delta cases, so we have to get transmission rates down now. The focus on vaccinations alone, although they are vital, will not be enough. We have to focus on a range of other measures such as ventilation in schools, as other hon. Members have mentioned, and the big issue of limiting social contact.
We need to be honest and to have consistent and clear messaging about the need to reduce social contact. There is a direct relationship between the number of contacts that we have and the spread of infection. Giving guidance to work from home while still giving the green light to Christmas parties is, as the professor of primary care in Oxford suggests, akin to giving people advice to wash their hands after a meal but not after going to the toilet. We are all dreading the prospect of not seeing loved ones again at Christmas, but that is exactly the direction in which we are heading unless the Government show some leadership and tell us the unwelcome truth that we might not like to hear.

Tim Loughton: The hon. Lady and I share a hospital trust. She will know that that hospital is being overwhelmed at the moment not by covid cases or covid pressure but by cases of non-covid illness that have been neglected during lockdown and by the inability to release people who are medically fit for discharge. Is it not correct that, as it stands, those are the real pressures on the health service, not a torrent of covid cases coming in?

Caroline Lucas: That may well be the case now, but I do not see why that is an argument against needing to get coronavirus cases down. If transmission rates go up on the trajectory that we are being told they will, we can be sure that there will be massive pressure on our hospitals and NHS trusts. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s point, but it is not a criticism of my argument. It is precisely because of the multiple pressures on our hospital system that we need to get transmission rates of omicron and delta down. That is why I want the Government to get rid of the disincentives that are built  into the system and that stop people being able to self-isolate when they need to. Why do we still not have better sick pay for self-isolation? Why do we not have better support for our businesses? If there is going to be reduced social contact, as there needs to be, we know that has an impact, particularly on the hospitality sector.
We need VAT reductions to be extended beyond April, when they are due to end. We need businesses to be offered grants to help them through the next difficult weeks and to be given flexibility on paying back covid loans. My constituency is already feeling the impact of omicron, and the hospitality sector is extremely worried. Why can we not tell it, for example, that there will be extended and expanded business relief, with the Government ensuring that local councils do not lose even more funding? There should also be a proper support scheme for the self-employed who, as we know, play such a key part in our economy but were utterly left out of previous support mechanisms.
I regret that the Government have given MPs less than 24 hours to analyse the statutory instruments before us. Frankly, they have not advanced the scientific case for them. A Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee inquiry earlier this year concluded that the Government had not made a robust case for vaccine passports, and I have not heard anything today that has persuaded me otherwise.
Although I recognise the civil liberty arguments on the measures, with which I have sympathy, my bigger concern comes from the strong body of evidence on the impact of vaccine passports on vaccination rates. That evidence makes it clear that, although they can accelerate take-up rates among those inclined towards vaccination, they also entrench opposition among those who are hesitant.
As Professor Stephen Reicher has said, people not getting vaccinated is not a cognitive problem—it is not that they do not understand the issues—but a social problem. People are not getting vaccinated because of a lack of trust, and trying to force them into it, either through vaccine passports or through mandatory vaccinations in some settings, compounds that mistrust, as does berating them or “othering” them. If we want more people to be vaccinated—and believe me, I absolutely do—that is the bottom line, but we have to build the sense that vaccination is being done for the community, not to it. It is for the common good. Behavioural science clearly indicates that coercion undermines the relationships we need to build and the respect we must show one another in order to increase vaccination rates, and we do everyone a massive disservice by ignoring that science.
I want to end by saying a few words about the wider global situation that we face. It is supremely reckless to have so catastrophically neglected vaccination in poorer countries, and it is extremely reckless of our Government to refuse to support the waiver on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights at the World Trade Organisation. As Winnie Byanyima, executive director of UNAIDS, has said,
“Omicron is with us because we have failed to vaccinate the world.”
The Government should absolutely be changing their position on that TRIPS waiver: they should not be blocking it. The virus will be with us for years and years  to come, and it will mutate into other viruses and variants unless we treat this as a global crisis, not just a crisis here at home. I beg the Government to look at the evidence, to look at what works, and to move forward on that basis.

Liam Fox: Let me begin by saying a word about the vaccine programme and issuing a plea to Ministers.
It is important that, with the emergence of omicron, we do not accidentally underplay the success of the vaccine programme to date. We know that vaccines will generate a number of immune responses—the production of neutralising antibodies, the production of marker antibodies, and a T-cell response—and, although with omicron a booster dose is required to bring about the level of neutralising antibodies that we saw following our response of two doses to the delta variant, the whole programme gives both individual and community protection; and we are starting from a very different place from the place where we were with the delta variant.
It is very important for us to encourage people, especially young people, to get their second dose. May I make a plea that we stop hearing from Ministers the phrase “two doses don’t work, three doses do”? I think that it is undermining the Government’s own programme. May I also make a plea that we drop this constant reference to the doubling time of the current variant? The fact that the measured doubling has been two days in the very early stages is no measure whatsoever that that is something that we will see in the future. If it doubled every day, the whole population would be affected in nine days. This is not modelling; it is simple extrapolation, which does not contribute to a sensible debate on the subject.
When it comes to the proposals before us today, lawmakers need to look at several elements. Are these measures necessary, are they proportionate, are they enforceable and will they be effective? Let me begin with the 10-day quarantine, which was a bad measure to begin with. It was disproportionate and it was likely to bring about a recurrence of the “pingdemic”, so I am glad that it is being dropped. However, the point made by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) is a key one which must be answered by the Government. If having the red list is pointless and if enforced 10-day quarantine is pointless, why are some people still in enforced 10-day quarantine? It is incumbent on the Government, having abandoned the policy, to let those people go free, otherwise I fear that the Government may face legal action.

Chris Bryant: The right hon. Gentleman is making a very important point. Some Welsh rugby players who had covid in South Africa did 10 days’ quarantine there and are halfway through quarantine in England, and they are now being told that they must complete the whole of the quarantine period. When the position is as illogical as that, it brings the whole thing into dispute.

Liam Fox: I absolutely agree, and what we do not require is more advice from Ministers on this subject; we require decisions from Ministers on this subject.
I also want to raise the issue of masks. I receive letters, as I imagine all Members do, from people who say, “There is no point in wearing masks because they do not stop transmission.” I assume that those people would not like their surgeons to wear masks during a surgical procedure. This is nonsense: mask wearing is a common-sense thing for us to do if it reduces transmission to some degree. It is a minor inconvenience to the vast majority of people and it is a sensible measure for the Government to introduce, and I therefore support it.
I cannot say the same for the Government’s covid passport. I do not believe it passes the necessity test, and I think the good working of the insurance industry and the availability of civil remedy in the courts are enough to drive the behaviour of venues towards sensible public health policy. We, as a Government, should not be creating criminal offences unnecessarily. I worry about enforcement and penalties in a system that is already overloaded. There is no evidence from Scotland or elsewhere that covid passports actually work. France was mentioned earlier, and there are more than twice as many people in hospital with covid in France than in the United Kingdom.

Siobhan Baillie: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Liam Fox: I have given way once. I am conscious that colleagues want to speak, so I will not give way again.
I assume the lateral flow tests will have to be externally validated, which will add a cost to anyone who wants to go to one of these venues. That will not be the help to the hospitality industry that has been suggested by the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State.
When compulsory vaccination was introduced for care workers, many hon. Members took the view that it was the thin end of the wedge, but we were assured that it would be care workers and no one else. Now it is all NHS workers, with a few exemptions. The ground for compulsory vaccination is that these staff will be working with vulnerable members of the public. Well, so will the police and some retail and post office workers. Where does it stop?
The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) made the valid point that this is a retrospective change to the terms and conditions of people who already work in the NHS, and it is likely that we will lose staff as a consequence. This is completely unnecessary when more than 91% of NHS staff have already volunteered to be vaccinated. It is disproportionate and illogical, and I do not believe it will be effective. If the logic of the Government’s position on covid passports is that people must be given a choice between being vaccinated and getting a daily lateral flow test, why does that not operate in the health service, too? The lack of logic in many of these measures diminishes support for the Government’s case.
I end on a positive note. Many of these measures are relatively small beer compared with what we can achieve through the booster campaign, so it is essential that the one message we leave the House with tonight is that every one of us has a duty to say to every one of our constituents, “Go out, get immunised and get a booster. That is the best way you can help yourself, your family, your community and wider public health.” If there is to be unanimity in the House at this time of year, that is surely the message that must resonate.

Justin Madders: Having had the dubious pleasure of spending an inordinate amount of time in various Committee Rooms over the past 18 months to scrutinise regulations introduced by the Government as part of their response to the pandemic, I must confess that I have had withdrawal symptoms following the reshuffle, so I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on these regulations today.
I am sorry to say that, on too many occasions, regulations were debated well after they came into force, so it is positive that at last we seem to be getting into the habit of having debates and votes before regulations become law. I would not want that to be seen as a ringing endorsement of the Government’s approach to parliamentary scrutiny, as two of these sets of regulations were published only at 3 pm yesterday, less than 24 hours before this debate began. I know things move quickly, but some of these regulations have been the subject of consultation for many months. There is no excuse for their being dropped in at the last minute.
The decision to reveal the precise detail of these regulations at the last minute has probably generated more opposition than is warranted. I have had many representations from constituents about the entry to venues regulations on the basis that they represent a compulsory vaccine passport. Let us be clear that they do not. A negative test taken in the 48 hours before entry can be used as an alternative, which addresses many of the legitimate concerns that have been raised with me about civil liberties and discrimination. I am pleased that my party’s persistence in pushing for a negative test as an alternative has been accepted, because it gives me enough confidence to support these regulations.

Matt Western: Across the House, many of us have been calling for greater transparency from the Government. The more we hear from the chief medical officer, the more concerning it is. If the Government had been more transparent up front, I am sure there would be greater support across the House.

Justin Madders: Indeed. If we look at what has happened in Wales, there has been a similar system for some time, which seems to be working reasonably well. People have been required to produce tests when travelling abroad and several venues in England have been doing that on a voluntary basis. It is not the slide into dystopia that some people fear, but the situation has not been aided by the Government not being as up front as they should about what the regulations mean. Many people already routinely take lateral flow tests before they go out.
However, there are some outstanding questions and concerns. There is no doubt that some constituents feel that the regulations are the start of a slippery slope and that we will soon have to show vaccination papers to get in anywhere. I will be clear: I do not support such a move. Given that the Government cannot even bring themselves to mandate wearing face coverings in pubs, I would be surprised if they moved in that direction, but I want confirmation when the Minister winds up that the Government are not planning any extensions to where the regulations will operate. We also need a clearer explanation of where the line is drawn and to which venues the regulations apply. Do places such as this,  which fall into the definition of a public hall indoors with 500 or more people who stand up and move around, come within the ambit of the regulations? My reading suggests that they do. If we want to gain the public’s confidence, we should show that the rules apply to us equally.
Another concern that has rightly been raised is whether a charge will be introduced at some point to obtain lateral flow tests. That would obviously undermine tests as an alternative to showing vaccine status. Charging people to obtain tests would be an absolute disaster from a public health perspective. That goes way beyond the remit of the regulations, but I hope we can get confirmation from the Minister that there are no plans to charge for tests.
The Government need to do rather better at setting out what they consider the cost of the regulations to be to businesses. Again, I note there has been no impact assessment for the entry regulations. Who will pick up the cost of enforcing them? There is nothing I can see about supporting businesses to check people, let alone providing resources to local authorities, which are meant to enforce the regulations.
What will be the position if there is a national shortage of tests? We are told that there are tens of millions of them but, as we know, there are challenges in getting them out to the people who need them. In those circumstances, will the regulations be suspended, or will people be pushed down the vaccination route?
That said, the evidential burden for a negative test seems particularly broad. I think that will assist in reducing the burden on businesses, but it also increases the risk of fraudulent tests doing the rounds. That would undermine the whole point of the regulations. We do not want the worst of all worlds: an expensive bureaucratic system that does not actually help reduce transmission because it is not properly enforced.
Regarding the vaccination of NHS staff, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that a small but significant proportion of covid admissions is the result of people acquiring the infection in hospital. I have seen figures to suggest that it has been as high as 15% to 20% of all covid admissions, although once staff started to receive the vaccination, the figure dropped dramatically. There is therefore evidence to show that the regulations will have an impact on covid admissions and the wider pressure on the NHS. I know it is difficult, but on balance, the regulations should be supported.
However, that should not be the end of the story. We have had a workforce crisis for years. Covid has accelerated cases of burnout and only a few weeks ago, the Government passed up the opportunity to grasp the nettle by refusing to implement a long-term workforce strategy. That is why we need an awful lot more work on the regulations.
The Government have an uphill struggle to earn people’s trust and explain why they consider the proposals necessary, to convince the public that what is before us will be the limit of restrictions and that we will not be talking about extensions or changes at some point in the future. Judging by the comments of many Conservative Members, the Government have failed to persuade a number of their Back Benchers, so it is little wonder that we are all being bombarded by emails from our constituents expressing concern. That exposes the wider truth that the Government have vacated the space where  leadership should be. They are compromised by their own failure to follow the rules, riddled with internal disagreements about the route ahead and unable to provide the authority to persuade a sceptical public that the measures are needed.

Steve Brine: Here we are again, and this time, two weeks on, the concept of “learn to live with covid” is as dead as anything I know. In July, we were told many, many times from the Dispatch Box, and from the podium in No. 10, that we were on an irreversible road map to freedom. Do we all remember that? I thought it was an unwise hostage to fortune when it was said, and so it has proved.
When I vote tonight, I will consider the legislation before us. I completely agree with the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) that it should have been published long before this, less than 24 hours before the debate. That is why I did not tell anybody in the media how I was going to vote today—because I am rather old-fashioned and like to actually read the legislation before I decide how I am going to vote. I wish those on the official Opposition Front Bench had done the same. I look at the legislation and I also look at the intention behind it, so what is the intention here? Is it to stop omicron? Is it to slow the spread? That is clearly not happening now, so I guess the question we then have to ask is whether these four SIs are going to do that. Working from home is not in an SI; it is guidance. We are told that people need to work from home where they can, but they can meet the very same people in the pub that evening and every evening. Is that going to slow the spread? I do not think so.
I abstained on the SI on mask-wearing two weeks ago and I will do so again this evening. I have no issue with wearing a mask. It does not impact on my life or on my freedoms. Many of my constituents have been wearing masks in plenty of situations, indoors and out, for a long time throughout the pandemic. I think it is a bit of a crutch, but if people believe that it makes them safer, that is fine. In many ways, it is an instrument of people feeling they are safe. Today’s SI says that we have to wear a mask in certain shops but not in pubs or in restaurants, and some of the exemptions make a mockery of it, but I will not stand in its way.
On the covid passport, if we were to put aside the practicalities and the moral arguments, which I do not, and many of my constituents writing to me certainly do not, then a vaccine still does not stop people getting this and passing it on. Professor Whitty said to MPs on a call this lunchtime that there is a minimal impact on transmission with regard to all our vaccines.
Last Wednesday, when the Secretary of State made his late-night statement, I expected him to bring forward a devastating piece of science that basically said, “The drugs don’t work.” That is not what he said; he said that we are moving to plan B on the basis of some modelling. We have SAGE’s gloomy predictions and yet a confirmation that vaccines do work with two jabs, even better with a booster. I completely agree. Today we have a study that says that the Pfizer vaccine has 70% efficacy against the omicron variant. Last Wednesday’s statement should have been about the national booster effort that was announced in the live TV broadcast on Sunday night.  I cannot say how many of my constituents have contacted me furious at the frightening nature of that broadcast that sent their children off to bed terrified.
If we truly mean the “learn to live with covid” mantra that we continue to hear, the booster campaign is 100% where our focus should be. We should be focusing on an ongoing plan to keep immunity high. We probably need a new primary care infrastructure, because “panic stations and cancel all else” is not a plan. Yesterday I spoke to three of the four primary care networks that cover my constituency. They are going to do their absolute everything to offer the booster to all eligible over-18s by the end of this month, but it will be really difficult. They are scrabbling around for venues in the week of Christmas. This is not the long-term thinking that we need.
I am ambivalent about regulation No. 1400 on face coverings and I will not stand in its way. On isolation moving to tests, I will support that if there is a Division, although I suspect there will not be. However, if people cannot get the lateral flow tests, as they have not been able to today and yesterday, as I raised in an intervention on the Secretary of State, then we get the pingdemic anyway, so we need to sort that supply out. I will not support the vaccine passport because it crosses a Rubicon. Italy began in exactly this way saying that it was all about providing lateral flow tests, and I think it will move, and move quite quickly. On the mandating of health staff, I will support that to be consistent with the mandating of vaccines in the care sector. If you work in the health service, working with vulnerable people, surely you have to believe in science above all else, and there is a precedent because of hepatitis B. So it is a mixed bag for me: I will support some of the measures before us today but not others.

Daisy Cooper: We all know that the NHS is facing one of the toughest winters in living memory; not only is covid a very real threat, but we are also facing a potentially tough flu season. The Liberal Democrats will be supporting the statutory instruments on face coverings and self-isolation, but let us be clear: the Government should never have scrapped the use of masks on 19 July. Their obsession with removing all precautions in one go had far more to do with party management than it did with public health. We have all made tough sacrifices throughout the pandemic, and asking people to wear masks on public transport would have been a very small ask with a very large pay-off. We also support the working from home guidance, for which we have been calling for some time.
Today we are discussing the plan B protections to reduce the spread of this disease, but there have been rumours overnight that the Government are also working on a possible plan C. It has been reported that the UK Health Security Agency has privately advised the Government that “stringent national measures” will need to be imposed by 18 December—in just four days’ time. This drip, drip of information is causing huge uncertainty and anxiety. We need clarity and we need it now. The British public are haunted by Christmas past. We know that that last-minute U-turn meant that many people ended up spending Christmas on their own last year. With just days to go, we need the Government to come clean and tell us what omicron means for Christmas this year.
We Liberal Democrats welcome the ambition of 1 million jabs a day, and we sincerely hope that it makes up for the complacency around the booster scheme over the last few months, but the way in which the target was announced, with no scrutiny and no details, was a real insult to all those who were left to scramble to pull a plan together on Monday morning. The idea that NHS staff, GPs and their staff, local authorities, the military—none of them—had been given any prior warning of the announcement is extraordinary, and highlights the Government’s complete lack of planning. The idea that those people, whom we are now asking to vaccinate millions, were an afterthought is shocking. But here we are. As always, our NHS, the GPs and their staff, local authorities, the military and volunteers are stepping up, and as a country we are grateful.
The Government still have not made a commitment this afternoon that if they bring in more protections of any kind, this House will have the opportunity to scrutinise them, so I want to get a few points on the record right now. If the Government are considering any further protections, they must support small businesses and our high streets. Hospitality businesses are experiencing unprecedented cancellation rates for this festive period, and they were experiencing them even before the latest protections were announced. Hospitality is technically allowed to stay open, but all of the mood music is telling people not to go, which is causing a huge problem. We have therefore called on the Government several times to call and convene an urgent hospitality summit in order to see what support businesses need right now.
If there are further restrictions, we must also look after people’s mental health. We need supported isolation, not lone self-isolation. There must be financial and practical support for those with caring duties and for those who live alone—and for our schools. Our children have suffered so much. It was months ago that the Liberal Democrats called on the Government to ensure that there was an air purifier in every single classroom in England, but we are still nowhere near that.
Finally, for all these measures to work, there must be trust in the Government. With that in mind, what we need now from the Prime Minister and his Cabinet is the truth. Will the Government come clean about Christmas, or will we see another last-minute U-turn that ruins the Christmas holiday and is too late to alleviate pressure on the NHS? I sincerely hope that it is the first.

Huw Merriman: Over the past year I have supported some covid measures and voted against others. With that in mind, my constituents may be struggling with the logic of my voting record, but I believe it is straightforward and I hope to exemplify why that is the case.
Where the measures have felt disproportionate to the wider harm, I have voted against their introduction. An example was putting the constituency in differing tiers when hospital admissions were low. Where the hospitals could not cope, I did support lockdowns as proportionate in those dramatic circumstances.
Where the wording of measures felt contrary to the aims they sought to deliver, I voted against their introduction. The 10 pm curfew was a good example of that; everyone  piled out of the pub and on to public transport, and the Government eventually conceded, and reversed. That was the same concept that led me to vote against last week’s self-isolation regulations. I could not understand why, when omicron was going to become the dominant variant, we were requiring people to self-isolate; it would have led to a pingdemic. I am glad that the Government are reversing that today and I will gladly support that regulation.
As for the other three, my thoughts are as follows. For face coverings, I voted for the same outcome for retail and public transport last week. I do not want to see face coverings become a permanent feature and I do not want to see them reintroduced in the classroom, but for a limited period of time, in a settings reference, it feels right to me to extend the scope. On NHS workers being vaccinated, I voted for the same outcome for the social care workforce, and will do so again. We know that getting vaccinated reduced the delta transmission rate by 60%. We also know that patients who get vaccinated are not completely protected from serious illness or death. Surely, if care is in the DNA, it is not unreasonable to expect vaccination to be an entry point. If NHS workers believe that their own choices come before the safety of their patients, or if they do not believe that the NHS is about working for covid and working for vaccines, or that the evidence on those is true, I question if they are in the right profession.
For vaccine certification at larger venues, I am genuinely perplexed about the outrage at, at worst, showing paperwork. Last month, I got asked for my passport when I came back into the country. I have to show evidence of purchase when I watch a football match. I was also delighted to be asked for ID showing my age when I wanted to buy a beer, only a month back. What is the issue in temporarily asking someone to evidence vaccination, or a negative lateral flow test, for certain venues? If it keeps people safe, and in jobs because we do not have to put more draconian restrictions on events and hospitality, I am happy to oblige.
The impact of the omicron variant is not known. What we do know is that the doubling rate is two to three days; for delta it was seven days. In South Africa, where the variant emerged, the hospitalisation rate is now rising. Yes, the vaccination rate is lower in South Africa. However, it is also their summer, they have a higher level of antibodies from natural infection, and the average age is 13 years lower than in the UK. These restrictions are limited in time and scope. I ask myself, “What is it that I will not be able to do tomorrow that I could do last week?” The answer is, absolutely nothing. A little more face-mask-wearing. A little more admin to go to the football. If you are an NHS worker and are not going to vaccinate, there are a record number of jobs available for you to work somewhere else.
There is a larger issue at play, which I find infuriating. Over 80% of my constituents have got themselves vaccinated. They are keeping themselves and their communities safe. They are minimising their own impact on the NHS. There are a small minority who are not playing by the same rules, and have the temerity to lecture me on freedom. Let me tell them this: their freedom to remain unvaccinated and then do as they choose is reducing the freedoms of those who have done the right thing for themselves and the wider community.
As a Conservative, I believe that rights are not absolute: they have to come with responsibilities. Being a cavalier for freedoms is what we were sent to this place to be. Being cavalier about the health of the public is contrary to that principle. With that in mind, I will be supporting these proportionate and limited measures this evening.

Paula Barker: Given time, I will concentrate my comments on mandatory vaccinations for NHS staff. I find myself really torn on this emotive subject, and I also find myself trying to apply logic to what is quickly becoming an illogical argument from the Government Benches. If it is really about patient safety, the Government should already have identified workers in the NHS who are still unvaccinated and have been working with them to alleviate fears and concerns and remove barriers. The Secretary of State should explain to the House why it is acceptable for those in the NHS who remain unvaccinated to work on the frontline to assist with the omicron crisis but, come 1 April, to be dismissed. Quite frankly, it makes no sense.
Comparisons have been drawn with the requirement for NHS staff to be vaccinated against hepatitis B. The reality is that chapter 12 of the Public Health England Green Book, which provides the latest information on vaccines and vaccinations, states:
“Hepatitis B vaccination is recommended for healthcare workers who may have direct contact with patients’ blood or blood-stained body fluids.”
It is not the law. The Government proposal will see these workers work around the clock during the next few weeks and months, only to be dismissed on 1 April if they do not succumb to mandatory vaccination.

Andy McDonald: Does my hon. Friend agree that if these measures will come into force at the beginning of April and the parties concerned are to participate in a framework agreement for their roll-out, there is an ideal opportunity for those parties to work through how they may be implemented? By rushing the measures today, we are being robbed of that opportunity, despite the noises from the British Medical Association, the unions and the royal colleges.

Paula Barker: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent point, which I agree with wholeheartedly.
The workers I am talking about are the workers who worked around the clock at the start of the pandemic, despite having inadequate personal protective equipment, because they were putting the nation first. They are the workers who will continue to work around the clock over Christmas and the new year. In an institution that is built on consent between patient and clinician, the Government are ripping up the rulebook to suit their own ends, while at the same time we are seeing the 17th reorganisation of the NHS since 1993.
We clapped for our care workers and NHS staff on a Thursday, and they will get us through the latest crisis over Christmas and the new year. But now the Government, who ripped up the rulebook last Christmas while the rest of us obeyed the rules, sacrificing seeing our loved ones—some in their final moments—are going to dismiss workers in April. And all this while No. 10 and the  Department for Education not only had Christmas parties but told this House and the nation that they did not. The message is inconsistent and makes no sense.
We are told to trust the Government, but it is increasingly concerning that they are reviewing the Human Rights Act and want to replace it. We should be very afraid, because this could be a sign of things to come from a Government and a Prime Minister who believe they are above the law. Even worse, if they do not like the law and it does not serve their purpose any more, they will rip it up and start again until they get the policy or the outcome they want, irrespective of civil liberties or economic damage.
The right to choose, particularly when it comes to our own bodies, is something we should all take very seriously. I implore everyone to get vaccinated and boosted to protect themselves and others, but the Government have set a precedent that should worry every citizen. For the first time ever, we have seen the profession of care workers singled out; they have had conditions attached to their employment status that were never there to begin with.
There is so much that the Government could do in the weeks and months ahead, from constructive negotiations with the trade unions, which remain opposed to mandatory vaccinations, to ensuring that local authorities and health services have the resources and capacity required to deliver the ambitious daily targets for boosters, and that statutory sick pay is set at the Living Wage Foundation rate. Most importantly, they could follow the rules themselves, to give the public confidence that any measures introduced are proportionate and necessary.
Before entering this place, I represented care workers, NHS staff and public servants, many of whom are now my constituents. I take very seriously my responsibility to ensure that their voices are heard, while trying to balance that with the unprecedented situation before us and the importance of public health. I think we can do just that by consensus rather than compulsion.
I implore the Government to pause on the issue of mandatory vaccinations, withdraw the relevant statutory instrument and work on the issue with the trade unions, the Labour party and all those in the House who offer cross-party support. The Secretary of State himself has said that we have seen an increase in vaccination rates since the start of the consultation. Please, remove the SI and let us work together to get the country vaccinated.

Andrew Murrison: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a doctor and vaccinator.
Statutory instruments Nos. 1400, 1415 and 1416 are without question relatively modest, certainly by comparison with the restrictions that currently apply in similar jurisdictions, and it is a very good thing that they will fall on 26 January. Nevertheless, I urge Ministers to think about the rapidity with which the evidence is changing. Currently, the evidence from South Africa is relatively positive: I am particularly impressed by the fact that mean hospitalisation in this particular wave is 2.8 days—it was previously eight days with the beta variant predominant in South Africa, whereas we have had delta, which is worse. From that, we can deduce,  because it is the same population with the same demographic issues, that this variant is relatively mild. That has to be our working hypothesis, but we really do not know. We are struggling for evidence and the evidence appears to be evolving by the day. It seems to me unreasonable for the public to see their representatives leave this place for two weeks when they would expect us to be here to hold the Government to account on a real-time basis, which would require the House to sit next week and the following week, inconvenient though that may be for a lot of colleagues. I urge Ministers to give that some thought so that we could consider, for example, the advice on working from home that is currently having a significant impact on sectors of the economy.
SI No. 1415 is permissive, for which I congratulate the Government. I welcome it, and it should avoid another pingdemic. The advice about taking a lateral flow test for seven days is sensible, but only if, of course, lateral flow tests are available. I have heard that they are not available today in my constituency and hope that Ministers will attend to the issue as best they can.
I cannot get too excited about statutory instrument No. 1400, on face coverings. The best evidence published last month in The BMJ’s meta-analysis suggested that the wearing of masks had some effect on transmission, so it is the least we can do to wear the wretched things. The measure extends the list of venues that require people to wear a mask, but as we have all seen—those of us who use public transport and shops—the prevalence of mask wearing has increased in any event, thanks to the good sense and good will of the British people. We should encourage that at all times.
Statutory instrument No. 1416, on access to venues, starts to get a bit more sticky. The Secretary of State’s workmanlike recasting of vaccine certificates as an alternative to a negative lateral flow test yesterday was very helpful, but it was not helped terribly much by the remarks attributed to the chief medical officer earlier today that seemed to suggest that protection against transmission for vaccinated people is rather less than many of us had previously hoped. That did nothing to advance the case that the Government are trying to make, but I am more relaxed about that particular SI now.
I am slightly concerned about the SI on regulated activities. If a recent negative lateral flow test is okay under SI No. 1416 and, to an extent, SI No. 1415, why is it not okay for healthcare workers? With respect to my colleagues, the difference between the BCG and hepatitis B vaccines for those in the national health service who perform exposure-prone procedures and the situation we are discussing here is that there is an alternative to demonstrate that a healthcare worker poses no threat to their patients: a lateral flow test conducted very recently. It seems to me that, given the Regulatory Policy Committee’s damning assessment of the measure and the likelihood that as a result we will lose quite a few people in a health and care system that can scarcely afford to lose people, we need to look at alternatives to keep people in, not least because even the vaccinated will feel the pressure of some of their unvaccinated colleagues leaving. This could be something of a perfect storm in the winter months, and I hope Ministers will look again at whether we can  have lateral flow testing—on a daily basis if we like, as I have had when I have been jabbing—as an alternative to insisting on vaccination.
I ask Ministers please to examine the issue of quarantine hotels and the requirement to bang people up. That is completely untenable, given the change in advice. I am surprised that Treasury lawyers have not already been advising Ministers that it is not appropriate, and I suspect there will be a wall of cases if those people are kept locked up when they should be released, in accordance with Ministers’ very welcome announcement today on the red list.

Meg Hillier: I rise to focus, in the short time available, on statutory instrument No. 1416, on entry to venues and the issue of compulsory vaccines. It feels as though I have been around this block before, because just over a decade ago I was the Minister responsible for identity cards and passports in the last Labour Government, yet I share concerns about health data being routinely required in order to access services.
When we dealt with identity cards, we were clear that they were about verifying identity, with no health information included, despite some groups lobbying to have health information on those cards. No immigration status information was to be on them, although many of my constituents and people up and down the country, do have cards with their immigration status on, which they are happy to have to prove their rights. There was other lobbying to include things such as veteran status on cards, but the Labour Government pushed back hard on those points and there was absolutely no requirement in law to have an ID card to access any public service.
That is very important, because tonight’s proposal does not require people to show their vaccine status in order to access a public service. It is about accessing optional large events, where they could be a spreader. In addition, ID cards were on a statutory basis, with a raft of underpinning law to make sure that we had a clear basis for them, and they were long-term. They were debated at length, including twice in this House, because the general election of 2005 interrupted the process.
Let us be clear that a covid vaccine status document or app is a temporary measure—it expires. I have just had my booster, but had I not done so it would have been a moot point as to how long my second vaccine would still give me the status that I require. The Secretary of State has said that that booster will be required, once it is rolled out, on that pass in order for it to be valid. It is not required in order to access any public service. That is an important step, because if we were to go down that route, we would need to get this on to a statutory footing. I hope we never get to that point, but we do not know what is going to happen with coronavirus. As it stands, we have not had a version that will kill our children, and thank God for that, but we know that this is not yet over. At this stage, there is no proposal for a permanent covid pass and therefore there is no need for this to have a statutory footing, because we hope this is something that will run into the stand.
We are also talking about a health treatment here. When I present my pass, it tells the person nothing other than my name and my date of birth; sadly, people will have probably worked out that I am no longer 21,  and I do not really mind about that. If that information is needed in order to get into a venue, I am prepared to make that choice. It is a compromise, because of what happens if we do not do this. The data will show that although even vaccinated people can catch covid and spread it, this reduces it, and the booster reduces it further.
For sceptics, let me say that 100% safety would mean a lockdown or closing down hospitality venues, events, workplaces and schools—no one wants that. So this is not a perfect solution to stop spreading omicron or any variant of the virus, but it protects our hospitality industries and events. Even though they are still hit, it protects them from complete closure. This approach of temporary and near universal coverage, limited information required to be presented and no requirement for venues to hold copies of our data is a proportionate response. It is a responsible thing to support each other. Individual freedom, as outlined by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), cannot be at the expense of wider freedoms; we do have that responsibility with that freedom.
I wish to touch on compulsory vaccines for health workers, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) on his tour de force on that. I am concerned about pushing people forcibly to have a vaccine, but we should never have got to this point. We should rely on reliable information and education to ensure that we do not get to the point where people have to be forced. Of course, we cannot force someone to have a vaccine, so the consequences for a health worker are immense. Ultimately, for those health workers on the frontline supporting their patients, vaccination will have to be a requirement for the job, because the risk of spreading the virus or of sickness across the health service because staff are not protected would cripple our health service. Reluctantly, therefore, I have moved to the point where, having voted against it in the past, I will support the measure tonight. Spreading a virus that makes us ill, kills us and puts pressure on the NHS is not something that NHS workers can be a part of, but NHS England must work hard to convince and support people and to get rid of the disinformation about the danger of vaccines.

Mark Harper: Let me start with a few words about the big picture. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) put this very well. We know that covid is going to be with us forever, and we know that we are going to have variants forever. The chief scientific adviser has told us that, and I agree with him. There are many people who think that we will just have to wait a bit and it will all be over, but that is not happening. We have to be realistic about what we are facing, and according to Jeremy Farrar, we are facing this challenge as probably the best protected country in the world through vaccination.
This was effectively the first big test for the Government: how do we deal with a variant of concern in a very well vaccinated population? I am disappointed that we have quickly gone into panic and emergency mode, with late Sunday night broadcasts—not in the House of Commons where questions can be asked—scaring people witless. For example, they have been told that two doses give them no protection, which is not true. Two doses provide  weakened protection from omicron against infection, but they still provide good protection against serious disease. I am concerned that many people out there who have had two doses and who are perhaps vulnerable now feel that they have no protection. That is simply not correct. If this is the first test, I do not think we are doing very well.

Aaron Bell: The data from South Africa that we heard this morning in the Science and Technology Committee showed that we still have good protection against severe disease from two doses of Pfizer, but it has gone down from 93% to 70% for hospitalisation. That is four times the risk of hospitalisation.

Mark Harper: I have seen that, and I look forward to the information from the UK. The point I have been making in my constant repetition about the House sitting next week or the week after or being recalled—my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) also mentioned this—is that we are learning new information every day, and when we get that information, we might need to make different decisions. The House needs to be involved in those decisions; they should not simply be made by Ministers by decree. I repeat that point, and I do not understand why Ministers will not give us that assurance. It would build a lot of trust and good will among colleagues, and I do not understand why they will not give that commitment.
These decisions have significant economic and social impacts, as well as impacts on the NHS’s ability to deliver non-covid treatments. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester has already pointed out that the NHS is going to scrap a whole load of elective surgeries and consultations with GPs in order to get boosters delivered. That might be the right decision, but I do not think that a proper balancing is taking place. Goodness knows how long it is going to take us to recover from the creation of this new backlog over the coming months. If the Government’s fears, as set out by the Secretary of State, are confirmed in any way, what is the exit strategy? What approach are they going to take to ensure that we do not face on-and-off seasonal restrictions forever? That is a serious question, and it has been raised by other colleagues. We need an economy that functions, people need to build lives that can function and the NHS needs to be able to function and deliver all the other healthcare we require.
Let me turn briefly to plan B. I am happy to support the measures on self-isolation. I simply note that, two weeks ago when we were asked to vote to restrict them, I voted against that. Two weeks later, the Government have agreed that I was right to do so, because they are effectively revoking those earlier measures. I will leave that thought with colleagues for when they decide whether they wish to listen to the advice of Ministers or others.
On vaccine passports, the Government’s plan B makes it very clear that Ministers’ preference is for vaccine-only passports. The only reason why tests have been incorporated is to buy or secure the support of the Opposition. That is the only reason. Ministers’ preference in writing is for vaccine-only certificates, so we know what they would like to do if they could get away with it.
The Secretary of State also made some commitments about not supporting mandatory vaccination for the entire population. The only reason that needed to be said is that, two weeks ago, the Prime Minister put on  the table the whole concept of mandatory vaccination and talked about having a “national conversation” about it. All I say is that, if Ministers wish to build trust and good will, they need to be careful about what they say. They should not fling these very troubling concepts around without thinking about them. Words have consequences, both in terms of what happens in the real world and of the trust that needs to be built with Members of Parliament and the public.
What is proposed for vaccine passports is very limited, but that was the case everywhere they were introduced around the world. Everywhere they have been introduced, they have been extended. In Wales, for example, where Labour is in power, they have been extended in terms of the venues to which they apply, so anyone who thinks that Ministers will stick to what is currently on the Order Paper are, I am afraid, kidding themselves.
The final thing I say to colleagues is this: the vote on vaccine passports is not just about the regulations on the Order Paper; it signals how we wish to treat this House, how we wish to be treated on behalf of our constituents, and the direction of travel and the approach. If my colleagues wish to send the Government a clear signal that they need to rethink their approach, then, certainly on vaccine passports, they should vote against them. Send the Government a clear message that we can do better. There is a better way, and we should send that message today.

Layla Moran: The past week has been tumultuous. We are about to go off on our Christmas break. The only positive thing that has emerged from party-gate is that it took Boris Johnson—[Interruption.] I do apologise. It took the Prime Minister potentially being on the front pages of all the newspapers on Monday morning to come out in favour of a different approach to plan B. I can only say thank goodness for party-gate. Had that not happened, I wonder how much longer we would have waited for the Government to act. The reason why that matters is that, every single step of the way through this pandemic, the longer we have waited, the worse things have got. The sooner we act, the less we have to act and the better the benefits.
This morning, the all-party group on coronavirus heard from the experts, many of whom advise the Government, and from people who represent frontline NHS workers. We wanted them to answer simple questions: “What is going on?” “Tell us about omicron.” Also, “Is it enough?” On omicron itself, the news is startling. Two-day doubling is quite scary. Even if all the population had boosters today, because it takes 12 days, more or less, for a person to develop immunity and become protected, the numbers would increase by 60 times. That is why the two-day doubling matters. It is true that when we get that booster immunity in place, the time of doubling will increase, which is a good thing, because we want to reduce that peak. My concern is that we have not gone fast enough soon enough.
Let us look at evidence from places such as Denmark and South Africa. Much has been made of South Africa, but it is true to say that our populations are not directly comparable. There are some things of which we need to take heed. For example, just this morning, there  has been new evidence to suggest that omicron affects young children more than delta. It takes tiny percentages of children getting sick for us to start seeing them following through into hospital admissions. We should remember that children are, as yet, unvaccinated; they have no protection at all. So the first plea I make to Ministers is where is the plan for children? It needs to go beyond hoping that they are going to be okay, because it would seem that this variant is potentially a threat. I will send Ministers the evidence I have seen, which is sincerely alarming, and I hope they take it seriously.
The other thing we see from Denmark is the shape of these curves. I know that this is hard to show when talking, but for the benefit of Hansard, the blue line is delta and the red line is omicron. This is data coming from Denmark, and I will post it on Twitter if people want to look at it. However, for the benefit of Hansard, the blue line looks like a gentle slope and the red line looks like a hockey stick, and that is deeply alarming. So what do the Government need to do? They have gone from plan A to plan B, and they are considering, once they get plan B through, moving from B to C. I was a teacher before, and if that was happening to a student of mine, I would get the parents in and get them to have a chat, because we need to go from B to B-plus.
What does B-plus mean? It is the booster—absolutely, it is the booster—but we have to recognise that between now and then it is not enough. We need to ventilate our public spaces. We need to provide support for social care, because unblocking those beds in the NHS requires extra support in social care. We need to ensure that test, trace and isolate works, which means allowing people to get tested—we have seen issues with that already—but we also need to help them to isolate. We need to limit mixing, and if people will not do it themselves, the Government need to act. We also need to bear in mind the effect of long covid in all of this. If there are huge numbers of people who already have it, many more are going to have that. So I urge the Government: do not hesitate, act quickly, please do not curb Christmas, and go from B to B-plus now so that we can enjoy the holiday ahead.

Andrew Bridgen: Whenever this House passes legislation, it is essential that it is effective, evidence-based and logical, and it needs to have broad public support. What I see in front of us today with regard to plan B delivers on virtually none of these items. Indeed, if I look on social media and in my constituency email inbox or just have general conversation with others, it is clear that the measures before us are being treated with strong suspicion of a wider agenda, partly because they simply will not deliver on their supposed intentions.
Sadly, the Labour party will be supporting the Government today as legislation passes to introduce vaccine passports for the first time in this country, so it will fall to Conservative Back Benchers to be the only people who are subjecting these proposals to any sort  of scrutiny. No doubt Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition would also like to take part in the discussions on proposals for mandatory vaccination, given the fact that they have supported every one of the Government’s lockdown proposals. Indeed, they have demanded longer and stronger lockdowns than we have had.
It would be remiss of me not to highlight the risk to the NHS that both vaccine passports and mandatory vaccination would bring. Vaccine passports tell those unconvinced of the science or those who for health reasons cannot take the vaccine that they are second-class citizens: they must show their papers or be banished. Mandatory vaccination would take these things a step further, effectively imprisoning anyone who does not agree with the status quo. All these measures are being considered or may be taken to protect our NHS.
There is all this fixation on the vaccine status of health and care workers, yet we know from the science that vaccination does not prevent transmission of the virus, so why are we going to put tens of thousands of people out of a job at a point when the NHS itself is going to be stretched to the limit and, may I add, when their vaccination status makes them little more or less dangerous to the people they work with or work for if they are tested daily?
Indeed, the best protection of all is actually to have had the virus and then to have recovered. The scientific evidence shows that someone is probably 10 to 20 times less likely to be reinfected if they have already had and have recovered from the virus than if they are double vaccinated, yet the many thousands of individuals in key worker roles who have had and have recovered from the virus but refuse to have the vaccine will actually lose their jobs at a key time. It is an inconsistency.
Turning to the question of the necessity of these restrictions, there have undoubtedly been far fewer deaths due to the omicron variant in South Africa despite its having been prevalent for four months and having replaced other variants that were more deadly in various ways. All the evidence we are hearing is that omicron is a milder form of covid with fewer cases of serious disease, fewer hospitalisations and, thankfully, far fewer deaths.
In my view, the most dangerous epidemic sweeping the world and our country is an epidemic of fear. It has seriously damaged mental health and particularly damaged the mental health of our young people. It must end.

Rachael Maskell: I rise to express my serious concerns about the principle of mandatory vaccination, not for any ideological reasons but because it will have the contrary effect to that intended and therefore is wrong.
My concerns are first and foremost for public safety and also patient safety. That is the analysis I bring; having worked in the NHS for 20 years as a clinician, that is drilled into us from day one. The Government’s lack of strategy in managing this pandemic is astounding and they must understand that we need to get ahead of the virus in order to lock it down, as opposed to locking people, and their futures, down. A lack of consistency also continually comes through their policies. They cannot have it both ways; there must be one approach that carries that thread of containing the virus. They cannot say to one venue that they are are going to lock it down but tell another venue it has all the freedoms it needs, because that simply does not work; in fact, it is dangerous, and therefore the Government need to get a grip.
The very people we revered—who just a year ago we were clapping and calling our heroes—are the very people who are now exhausted, traumatised and frightened,  and the legislation before us will sack them. For two decades I was their colleague and I know the dedication, compassion and care they give to their patients; I was their trade union leader and I know their professionalism and the sacrifice they give for the people they care for. I will not undermine that trusted relationship, which is absolutely essential in delivering healthcare in our country, and I will not ride roughshod over Labour’s NHS constitution, which pledges to assist people to participate fully in their own healthcare decisions and to support them in decision making. I will not turn my back on working people, and I will never forget my roots and those I served alongside. While the Prime Minister partied, NHS workers put on layers of personal protective equipment and fought for lives. That is what those in the NHS do: you make sacrifices and while traumatised you just keep going.

Jeremy Corbyn: My Friend’s excellent work as a trade union leader in the NHS is well understood. She is speaking on behalf of NHS workers; has she any idea how many will be affected by this totally wrong attempt to force vaccinations and passports on people?

Rachael Maskell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that intervention and he makes a point I wanted to make myself. The Government’s estimate on that in their impact assessment is 123,000, and even in the best-case scenario 62,000 will lose their jobs, which the NHS simply cannot afford.

Marie Rimmer: My hon. Friend knows about health and care workers—

Nigel Evans: Marie, address the House please.

Marie Rimmer: I apologise. I know my hon. Friend knows about care and health workers so she knows how dedicated they are; they have a vocation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government can and should stop going too far? Let us not break the trust between patient and worker and between Government. Let us go down the route, which has been proven to work, of persuasion and education, and ask them and work with them to distil the fear.

Rachael Maskell: I thank my hon. Friend, who represents her constituents so well. There is an alternative path and we can take it today. We know that the Prime Minister is allowing people to go to pubs and clubs unmasked, while he is sacking NHS staff who are wearing full PPE and testing. Some 93% of NHS staff are vaccinated; figures from the Office for National Statistics show that 4% of people are vaccine-hesitant, which rises to 21% among minoritised communities. As 22.1% of NHS staff are from minoritised communities, the regulations will target black workers. In fact, 26.8% of workers of mixed race are not vaccinated; that is in the Government’s impact assessment, which also gives the figures for black workers. The regulations therefore indirectly discriminate against black workers.
Unvaccinated staff are frightened. On Friday, I spoke to someone in my constituency who has worked for the NHS for 16 years. Her father had a vaccine. His heart  stopped. Miraculously, NHS workers brought him back to life; he is now in a critical condition. She is frightened. She tests; she wears PPE; she has sacrificed everything. She will be sacked.
I want all NHS and care staff to have vaccine counselling and education with a qualified practitioner who holds the right competencies so that concerns can be explored, not with line managers, who just do not have the competencies. I want everyone to be vaccinated—I cannot stress that enough—but I want to win the trust of staff, not push them further away, as the Government’s approach will. In York, where we have focused on those trusted conversations, we have seen 99% of our social care staff vaccinated. It just shows what works and what makes the difference.
We do not want to push people further away. We want to bring them in, win their trust and win their confidence, because we will have to ask more from our health and care staff as things get harder—we certainly will if there are fewer people to deliver the service. Let us do what works—enforcement never does. The regulations are vaccine-illiterate.
If 123,000 people lose their job in the midst of a health and care crisis, it will be catastrophic, not least as people are starting to hand in their notice now. Why go through another tough winter of trauma when we do not have to? The regulations will make it worse. We know that two vaccines, or even three, will reduce transmission of the virus, so get your jabs! But they will not stop transmission, so let us move to better PPE, FFP3 masks, daily testing and better biosecurity. Rather than pushing the regulations today, I urge the Government to go away and come back to the House with a plan for us to vote on in January. That is good governance and the way forward.
As a trade unionist, I am not prepared to be complicit in the sacking of our NHS and care staff. Trade unionists fight for working people; we are never complicit in writing their P45. As a trade unionist, I came to this place to fight for working people. I therefore urge that we change course and put staff and the care that they have for their patients first.

Sara Britcliffe: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), but where I have to disagree is that we need to balance the economy with these measures. The damage that bringing in mandatory masks in the hospitality sector would cause to the small pubs in Hyndburn would be huge, so we have to try to mitigate it.
I am against mandatory vaccine passports. The Government would have had to present significant evidence to change my mind, so the fact that the Secretary of State has said very clearly at the Dispatch Box that he is also against them has eased my mind. I want to be clear that this vote was never about mandatory vaccine passports. If someone does not want to show that they have had the jab, they can just show proof of a negative test, which is a key caveat. Hon. Members should be careful about how they word that message, because it is irresponsible to push it to the public and make it out to be something that it is not.
I would like reassurance from the Government that if anything further was proposed, there would be a vote so that the House can decide. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House are looking at plan C and saying, “Where does it end?” If we know that we have a vote on any further restrictions, we can all look at the measures proposed today and vote on what is in front of us. That is really important.
My position is that we cannot keep locking down—it is financially unviable—so there has to be an exit strategy. The limitations for hospitality and such things are key. The measures are also temporary, so that we can see what is going on with omicron. Twelve months ago, we could see our family for one day over Christmas and we were allowed out of the house for only an hour a day to exercise. In comparison, these restrictions—we know omicron is really transmissible and we need to see what will happen—are not as draconian. We need to make that clear to the public.
If there are further restrictions and a plan C, they should be brought to the House so that we all have an opportunity to have our say and to vote on them. The measures are being put in place to make sure that we keep our freedoms and that we can keep going to the pubs and clubs with our friends. It is a little measure to make sure that we can spend Christmas with our family. It is better to be safe than sorry.

Fleur Anderson: I thank everyone across the country who has had their booster—everyone who has been lining up at centres across the country and taking the time to ensure that they have done the right thing by getting their booster. I thank all those NHS staff who are enabling that and who are putting in a mighty push to change all their ways of working to get the booster into as many people as possible.
I thank all those who have written to me about the issues being debated today. There are those who say that we should have more measures and that they will feel safe to go out into public spaces or to take up NHS appointments only if more measures are put in place. There are also those who have written to me about their concerns about more measures being put in place and more restrictions on our lives.
It is clear that omicron is a threat. It is highly contagious with cases doubling every two days. Most cases in London are now omicron cases and the numbers are increasing all the time. Two vaccines do not reduce the rate of transmission as much as they did for delta, so it is clear that action must be taken. We know that it is more contagious, but although we do not yet know its severity, we cannot wait. Last year, at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, the Government waited too long. They delayed, sometimes for weeks, and we saw the effects. We have to act now.
This is a measured and proportionate set of actions. On masks, I do not think we should have dropped that measure in the first place. We should never have stopped wearing masks on public transport and in shops to keep shop workers safe, so I welcome that.
On vaccine passes, which are not vaccine passports, I am glad that the Government have listened to the Opposition saying that there need to be options. It is absolutely proportionate for people to show proof of double vaccination or a negative lateral flow test to  enable big venues and our hospitality venues to stay open, which is so important after last year and the loss of so much income.
Those venues need to stay open, so this is a freedom to go out and to enjoy events and be out with people while staying as safe as possible. We know that there will be a peak in the number of cases in a couple of weeks, and that a couple of weeks after that, in the new year when we return to this place, there will be a peak—or not—in hospitalisations. It is right that we take these measures now to stop hospitalisations later. I welcome the change on the red list of countries, which the Minister announced earlier. If it is not having any effect, there is absolutely no reason for so many of my constituents to be unable to visit their families in South Africa, but also to pay huge amounts of money to be quarantined. I also welcome the Minister saying that he will look into the quarantine costs of those who were unfairly stuck in the middle of a couple of weeks when they needed to pay. Some of my constituents who have written to me are NHS workers who have had to pay thousands of pounds they cannot afford.
I will welcome the engagement with the Elections Bill of all those on the Conservative Benches who are now so worried about civil liberties. It certainly will be a “Papers, please” society when we are asked to show our ID to vote. That is far more of an infringement of our civil liberties. Voting is such a fundamental thing compared to going to clubs or large events.
We absolutely need the schools programme to ramp up. School transmission rates are very high in primary schools in my constituency, but all those facing exams this year must be able to do them. This is not a slippery slope to covid passports, and I am grateful for the assurance on that. We need to ramp up communication and engagement with health staff who face measures later on in the year if they do not get the vaccine. We must see an increase in statutory sick pay. That is only fair.
In conclusion, the Chief Medical Officer gave a chilling briefing to MPs earlier today, saying that when it comes to the omicron variant the brakes are off. We have to put the brakes on. Too many people have died, and we mourn every single one. Now is the time to take action, and I encourage everyone to get their booster jab.

Ben Spencer: I will speak briefly to ensure colleagues can get in on this important debate.
I will go through the four measures and come up with some big questions that I think we need to ask about what we are doing and how things go forward. First, the self-isolation statutory instrument makes quite a lot of sense. I welcome the Government’s bringing in this change and bringing in daily testing.
On the vaccination of health staff, I declare an interest. I used to work as a doctor and my wife currently works as a doctor. I really have no issue with this measure. When I went through medical school, I had to be vaccinated. I would flip the argument on its head. I would be very concerned about a relative of mine going into hospital and being treated by someone who was unvaccinated. I would be very concerned about them getting covid and becoming very poorly. Fundamentally, this is a basic duty of care issue, but I recognise there are different views on that.
I struggle a bit with the mandatory face mask provisions. This, along with the working from home guidance, will cause harms. Given the Secretary of State’s update today on the omicron wave that is coming forward, I wonder what actual impacts it will have and what the harm-benefit ratio looks like, but there we are.
My real issue is with the covid status certificates. There are many reasons to be concerned about covid status certificates, but I will focus on one. As a doctor, I have spent my career looking after people who are marginalised: people with severe mental illness, people with a learning disability and the digitally excluded. Looking at the measures and the explanatory notes, I cannot see how one can show evidence of a negative test without having access to the internet or having a phone—how any validation process can go through. It is clear to me that it will exclude people. I cannot support excluding anyone, but especially those people who are the most marginalised in our society.
My big three questions relate to what comes next. I had a chat with the leaders of the Ashford and St Peter’s Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in my constituency about what is happening and what their plans are for the next few weeks. They tell me that already, because of the pivot towards vaccination by primary care, they will have to look at shoring up A&E, because there will not be enough GP capacity and people will be going to A&E. That may have a knock-on effect. The hospital will have to cancel elective care so that A&E can be shored up. They do not want to cancel elective care. It is a great hospital trust and its leaders think they can get through and still do some elective measures. One thing they asked me to ask Ministers today is whether they can have flexibility on what they do around elective care to try to keep it going as much as possible.
There will be a cost in terms of missed GP appointments and missed screening. We have already seen what the cost was in the past year in terms of waiting lists and so on. I would like to hear from the Minister what the plan is to recover NHS as usual after we have got through this wave. Trust me, a protected NHS is not an NHS in which GPs abandon routine care to focus on vaccination. A protected NHS is one in which people can get their blood pressure screening or have a conversation about their mood. It is one in which health visitors see young families and have important conversations about whether a woman feels safe with her husband at home.
My second question is: what happens when the next vaccine escape variant comes? We all feel it is inevitable that another one will come after this wave, so what is the plan to prevent our having to repivot like this again? What is the long-term strategy for living with covid?
My third question is more of a plea. The costs of this pandemic have largely fallen on the shoulders of our children. Please, please, please, will the Minister confirm that there are no plans for mandatory restrictions on schools and that we will never again close our schools?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: The last speaker at five minutes is Wera Hobhouse, and then it goes to four minutes.

Wera Hobhouse: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I might even stick to the four-minute limit.
No doubt we are at a pivotal point in the fight against covid, and my constituents in Bath, like many across the country, are doing their best to keep covid levels low in their community. I thank everyone for their efforts.
I am glad for the consensus in this place that getting vaccinated is the most important thing. What we are debating is the most effective way of getting the most people vaccinated, and I hope this debate does not distract from the fact that we all believe vaccines are the best way to beat covid. We will beat all the conspiracy theories about vaccines and about covid being an invention. I am glad there is consensus on the importance of us all getting vaccinated.
The Liberal Democrats have always supported mask wearing, which reduces but does not entirely eliminate the risk. It is important to wear a mask, and we deplored the fact that the requirement, which is not difficult, had been dropped, including in this House. Mask wearing is not just about keeping ourselves safe or even about keeping our loved ones safe; it is about keeping everyone safe. Yes, we enjoy our civil liberties and we should protect them, but they do not include the liberty to harm others. That is an important principle, and it is why we support these public safety measures.
Many of my constituents have been in touch with me to share their concern about the logistical difficulties of following Government advice. They want to do the right thing, but they often find it difficult. I met one of my constituents last week, and he has recently returned from Zambia, where his work is based. As Zambia is a red-list country, he was required to quarantine in a hotel for 10 days. He continually tried to book a quarantine hotel, but he was unable to do so because the hotels were fully booked. When he was finally able to book one, he received an email from Corporate Travel Management saying his booking had been cancelled due to an error on its part. Upon speaking to the call centre, a member of staff told him there was no problem.
The red-list system has now been dropped, but the stress and cost to people who tried to do the right thing has been considerable and needs to be addressed urgently. Will there be compensation for those who faced considerable cost and, as has already been asked, will those who are still in quarantine be released immediately?
Another constituent is housebound. Her son lives in Southampton and her multiple health conditions make it impossible for her to get to a vaccination centre on her own, which means she has not yet had a booster. Her story is all too common. The local clinical commissioning group says it is in the process of contacting people who are housebound, but many are still waiting to be contacted. Obviously they are very worried, so I hope the Minister is able to outline the steps being taken to ensure the housebound are able to receive their booster as a priority.
Lastly, another constituent was vaccinated abroad, yet is still unable to receive confirmation of his double-vaccinated status, because his vaccines are not recognised on the NHS app—a problem that has been noted since the summer. To make matters worse, my constituent and many others like him are not able to get their booster, because the system will not recognise them as having been doubly vaccinated.
The Government must address these issues as a matter of urgency. It should not be this difficult for those who are trying to do the right thing to follow the Government’s own guidelines. My constituents and many across the country want to do the right thing, but the Government must do their bit or people will lose further confidence at this already highly volatile time, when we need as many people as possible to have confidence in the system and the Government.

Nigel Evans: There is now a four-minute limit. I call Jane Stevenson.

Jane Stevenson: I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate. Let me start by saying that I absolutely support the Government’s aim of buying us a bit more time to increase the booster take-up and give us all more protection, and nothing that I am about to say makes light of covid in any way at all, but my issue with the regulations is the language and how we bring people together to get the most compliance.
Omicron certainly will not be the last variant that we have to deal with. A significant number of people in my constituency have grave concerns about civil liberties, data harvesting and all those things. Although I think their fears are unfounded, I have to listen to them, because we in this place have to take their concerns seriously. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said, we do not allay the fears of over-regulation by passing more regulations. We need these people to come on board in a national effort to keep people safe, so I believe that we need a change of language—from telling people and mandating measures, to asking people to comply.
We already trust our constituents to take the tests correctly and to give us a correct reading of their test; there is nothing preventing them from declaring a negative test when they have tested positive, or not taking the test at all and just scanning the code. Compliance could be increased if they could trust that they were not facing these restrictions for no reason and their data was not being harvested. I respect that this is a major concern in my constituency. The vast majority of my constituents and the British people will do everything asked of them by the Government, without it needing to be mandated. They have been incredible throughout this pandemic; they have acted in the interests of themselves, their families, their communities, their cities and their towns.
I humbly ask the Government to get back to our Conservative principles of trusting the British people. They are the people who sent us to this place; they have common sense, know the risks and can act with supreme intelligence, and we must never underestimate their community-mindedness. That is my only comment on this evening’s votes. I will not support all of the motions, but I will support some of them. I make a last plea to the Government; in order to go forward together as a nation, we have to stop passing never-ending regulations and move forward in a voluntary, community, public-spirited way.

Alec Shelbrooke: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson).
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) said, our hospitals and intensive care unit beds are being filled up with unvaccinated people. It is a real problem in the hospitals in Leeds, and is having a huge impact on people who want to get vaccinated—people who want their lives to move forward and to be able to continue to do the things that we all want to do. As my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary said at the time, the reality is that there could come a point when people are not able to have the operation that they may need, because a bed might not be available. I have spoken to trained, highly-skilled surgeons, who have been in situations where the theatre is available and the theatre nurses are available, but the operation is cancelled because there is no bed to put the patient in, so they cannot do the operation.
What we have before us today is a set of really unfortunate measures. They do not sit comfortably with me: I do not like the things we are doing. However, they are balanced for this moment in time. I do not believe that they are measures for vaccine passports, as they have been described in the countless round robin emails I have received, and it has been made clear from the Dispatch Box that they are not. They are measures for a specific moment, in a very specific area.
I think we need to consider requiring everyone to have a lateral flow test before going into an area where there may be a chance of spreading the virus, because that is a way of protecting society. It is people’s right not to be vaccinated—I am totally opposed to mandatory vaccines—but it is my right, and the right of a great many of my constituents, to expect to be able to continue to receive services that we have paid for and used, when and where we may need them. That is what is overwhelming services at present, and it is going to lead to a simple choice, and a debate is going to be had.
At some point, we are going to have to work out how we are going to free up intensive care unit beds. Are we going to say that people must take lateral flow tests to ensure that they mix in an environment in which everyone has had one, if we do not want to introduce vaccine passports? In fact, I do not believe that vaccine passports would work anyway. Someone might have a partner who did not want to be vaccinated and could not attend an event, but the other person could. Because that person had a vaccine certificate, a test would not be required, and he or she might get covid and go home and give it to the partner, who might then end up in intensive care. So that is not really going to work. Lateral flow tests do work.
As I have said, I do not believe that what is on the table today is a vaccine passport, which is why, although I do not like this package of measures, I will be supporting it. However, there is a fundamental question, which is going to stir up a really hard debate in this country. Do we demand that everyone has a lateral flow test before they go anywhere? Do we find strains which may not cause a lot of disease and let them spread to try to defeat the virus? Or must we take the Singapore model, and say, “On your head be it if you need hospital treatment, and there will be financial consequences”? One of those three things will have to happen in the long run.
As we stand here today, we are faced with a very unfortunate set of measures, but I am backing them today because I think that what is sacrosanct at the moment, especially after last year, is the need to protect this  Christmas season. People must be able to have that, and if it means a few sacrifices now, I think that that is a price worth paying.

Luke Evans: I applaud the Government for their massive scale-up and huge ambition in respect of the booster programme. It truly is the way out for our nation, and I commend them for their approach. Critics will argue about whether the target of the end of this month will be reached, but we must not listen to them. Their myopic political point scoring will be forgotten in the light of the fact that the Government are doing everything they can to get jabs into arms, because that is the way out. However, I accept that further measures are necessary.
The Government will have my support on both the mandating of face coverings and the change in isolation procedures. While masks are of course inconvenient, they are a relatively easy way of reducing the risk of not only covid, but other viruses such as flu. Let us not forget that the number of flu admissions places a huge amount of pressure on the NHS, so a reduction in both conditions—as evidenced—makes sense to me.
Those who argue about the nuance of settings for masks often miss the point. I have heard on numerous occasions, both in the Chamber and among the public, the question, “How does the virus know whether it is in a restaurant or a shop?” Of course the virus does not know, but that is not the point. The point is this: what are the easiest measures which, when applied to the population as a whole, will reduce the risk as far as possible? The Government have to balance that at mass levels. What measures can be implemented to reduce the risk of covid, while mitigating the instant economic and non- covid damage that could occur in vulnerable sectors such as hospitality? A change in the self-isolation procedure suggests itself. This is a difficult but fair balance.
Let me now say something about mandatory vaccinations for NHS workers. I spoke about the issue during a debate in the House on 13 July, and I am not going to rehash the entire argument; I urge anyone who wishes to look up my speech to do so. However, for me the argument still stands as it did then. It was based on the duty of care for those in positions of responsibility to the most vulnerable. That stands even more starkly today. One only undertakes that commitment in their decision to pursue this career and the precedent already exists. However, that argument must not be used as a slippery slope argument for mandatory covid vaccination for the general population. I was glad to hear the Health Secretary confirm that that would not be the case, because I do not believe that the House, or indeed most of the UK population, would accept that.
On the topic of slippery slopes, that leads me on to the final regulation—that of the lateral flow test and the covid pass exemptions for certain venues. I am against vaccine passports. I do not believe they are practical, moral, ethical or indeed evidence-based in a scientific rationale. The closest comparison we have is Scotland, and the Scottish Government’s 70-page report does not provide the evidence for passes. To introduce such a huge change in the health management of our nation requires a full and thorough debate and I do not believe it will be done justice tonight. I am so pleased that the Government have listened and added lateral flow tests  as an alternative because at least that provides a choice, but I cannot support covid passes. I worry about the slippery slope. What businesses, what society interactions, what infections might come in scope in future months or years?
In closing, looking to the future, I said in the House on 16 June 2021 that what was most needed was a full debate on the risk that we as society are prepared to tolerate when it comes to covid for those vaccinated and for those unvaccinated who will never get vaccinated, and the trade-off between covid and non-covid health implications, health protection measures and our economy, society and liberty. I hope that the House will bring such a debate next year.

Andrea Leadsom: Our covid measures have, and continue to, hurt our citizens—from a man with late-stage dementia who is terrified of face masks to an 80-year-old constituent who got stuck in South Africa, not because of omicron, but because flights were suspended; and now, the news that non-urgent primary care will be diverted once again, with the huge risk of harm to babies and young children if face-to-face support is unavailable for long periods of time once again. And the creeping regulation is so hard to keep up with, resulting in teachers cancelling school plays, businesses stopping events and families staying away from happy occasions for fear of breaking a rule they did not know about. Surely the campaign against covid should now focus on two key fronts—more boosters and more education.
The action by Government on boosters is fantastic, but instead of criminalising people, why do we not start a hard-hitting public health campaign—“If you’re going out this Christmas, don’t forget to take a test” or, “If you’re seeing your granny, make sure you get a jab”? Let us persuade people, rather than criminalise them. And let us go much further to reassure those who have a fear of vaccines, whether because of a needle phobia, because of cultural sensitivities, or just because of fake news.
My specific concern about testing requirements for big events is the sheer challenge of enforceability in a commercial setting. It would be far better, in my view, to use the approach of a daily test or a vaccine exemption for NHS staff and carers instead. That would be a practical and fair solution for both carers and the cared-for, and it would be enforceable. It would also avoid the risk of losing NHS and care workers who were unwilling to accept compulsory vaccinations.
I have supported the Government throughout the pandemic when I could see the present danger that we faced, but this time around the measures proposed are precautionary—just in case—and I cannot see where this will end. Covid will be with us for many years to come and it is unthinkable that, every autumn from now on, we will be limiting the quality of life for all citizens, just to be on the safe side; and justifying our new illiberal rules on the basis that “They are less authoritarian than those of other countries” is truly appalling. That is not our culture; that is not our history.
This is a slippery slope, down which I do not want  to slip, so I am afraid I will not be supporting these measures.

Greg Clark: It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom). I think everyone acknowledges that the Government have a difficult task. Although it is important that we debate the regulations before us, in some ways, they are not the most damaging measure. The advice that the Government gave to work from home has much more significant consequences than any of the relatively minor measures we are discussing. Unlike the regulations, that advice does not have an expiry date or an impact assessment, even though we know the impact on businesses across the country, and on young people who work for firms that are perhaps conscious of what their insurers and regulators might require, once again being confined to their homes. That is significant and it is a shame that the House does not have a chance to vote on it.
On the measures that we have a chance to vote on, there is a lack of clarity about the purpose of the access certificates, if I may call them that. Is it to prompt people to get a vaccine? Is it to give people a nudge and those who have not availed themselves of a vaccine a further incentive to do so? If so, what is the evidence for that working? We know that 90% of the population are vaccinated. What motivates that remaining 10%? Is it the case that the desire to attend a football match or a nightclub will cause them to take up the vaccine? If so, the measure might be a good one. However, we are inconveniencing the 90% of people who are vaccinated when we have no evidence. What are the alternatives? If we really want the remaining people to take up the vaccine, rather than requiring a pass at the entrance to a nightclub or a football ground, perhaps we should have a vaccine centre at the turnstile or the door. That might be better for those who have been too disorganised to arrange their vaccine. We do not know; we have reached for compulsion.
As colleagues have said, the measure cannot just be about obtaining a vaccine. The option of a negative lateral flow test would not be available if the purpose were just to nudge people. There is a certain logic to requiring 100% of people entering a venue to have a negative test, but as we know, it is perfectly possible for people with just two jabs to transmit covid. There is an ambiguity about the purpose of the measures. Given that the consequence for business owners and venue operators of failing to get right some very complex regulations is a fine of £10,000—a huge amount for small business operators—we should not take that lightly.
I wonder whether the Minister can answer, possibly in an intervention, a question that came up in the debate about whether the lateral flow tests are to be self-administered or sent, at some cost, to a third party to administer. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that in his winding-up speech.
Whatever the difficulties, there are flaws in the approach, about which I hope the Minister can provide some reassurance when he winds up.

Alicia Kearns: Although I fully support the Government’s determination to protect our communities, I seek clarity. Like most of us, I support evidence-based policy making and, in the absence  of data, precautions, not restrictions. I will vote with the Government today on precautions. Face masks are about personal responsibility and a small step we can take to protect our communities. I support the NHS mandate—we need to keep our health workforce safe and not put those who are most vulnerable and for whom they care at risk. Testing over 10-day isolation—absolutely; testing is the most important thing we can we do and I support it. Boosters—absolutely; we need to get everyone boosted.
However, I find difficulty with vaccine passports for three main reasons. First, there is no evidence that passports reduce transmission. Yes, France and Scotland have seen some increase in the uptake of the vaccine but no reduction in transmission as a result. Secondly, we are currently saying that two jabs are not enough. Well, if we need a booster and that is so important, why is the vaccine passport based on two jabs? There is a contradiction there. I do not believe that covid passports would prevent lockdowns. I question their mechanics, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). Someone who is self-declaring that they have had a negative test is asking someone to give them that declaration with no evidence that they have had a negative test, and then that is somehow meant to be some kind of increase in capacity. The bureaucratic mechanics required for the passports to work are not there, but neither are the bureaucratic mechanisms required for negative tests. That will come at great cost to us. We do not have the capacity to deliver the negative test aspect of the passport regime.
Secondly, on modelling of the severity of omicron, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory has not even reported yet, so how can we be asked to decide on these measures today without the data? South Africa is not seeing the expected spike in deaths. Hospitalisation sits at about 30 per 1,000, compared with 101 per 1,000 for delta. Using the modelling on delta cannot be right because we know that this variant is not the same. There are currently 10 people in hospital with omicron, but are they in hospital because they have omicron or do they just happen to have it? We do not know the answers. Frankly, if omicron is that severe, we need more than the plan B measures proposed today.
My third reason for voting against covid passports is the fundamental unease they give me. We do not discriminate on a medical basis in this country, and we cannot. We are encouraging people to work from home, but pub trips or parties are permitted, when we know from the previous lockdowns that the problem was with home mixing. We have very high vaccination rates. We do not need these passports. I know that 96% of people in Rutland and Melton have had their first jab, 93% have had their second, and 47% have had their boosters. My constituents deserve to be thanked and recognised. They do not deserve to have to have passports imposed on them when they are taking up the vaccine like this. I thank the amazing vaccinators across Rutland and Melton, particularly the Rutland Lions Club.
We are constantly changing the rules. Businesses cannot keep up. These are not the circumstances they asked for. Then there are school closures. Since we announced the measures in plan B, schools across the country are talking about closing. That is not acceptable. Our children must be in school to learn and to be protected. Our children deserve more. We cannot have  people going out to parties and pubs and children not in school. The Government must mandate for schools to remain open, not just say that that is the guidance.
My final plea is for help, because in Melton we do not have enough clinics for vaccinations, and this has been an issue for months. I plead with the Minister to make sure that we get more booster clinics in Melton.

Aaron Bell: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns). This has been a good debate and a necessary debate. Strong views have been expressed on all sides, and I think those reflect the views that a lot of us have heard from the country and in our inboxes. I believe in a proportionate response to the potential threat of a public health emergency, and that the precautionary principle applies, so I will support the Government today. Given what I have heard about the transmissibility of omicron, I think these measures will be for only a limited period of time, one way or the other, because it is very transmissible and we do not yet know quite how severe it is.
The response that the Government take has to be balanced with the needs of the economy, as many others have said, and we must be particularly mindful of the effect on the hospitality industry, particularly at this time of year. But it is not these measures that are affecting the hospitality industry. In fact, some of these measures will support the hospitality industry by giving people confidence. It is the virus that is affecting the hospitality industry. Sometimes I get the sense that some colleagues, and certainly some people who write to me, are arguing with the virus, not with the Government. I think it is common cause across the House that we all do not like the virus, but unfortunately the virus does not care about that and it will keep on doubling.
That brings us to the data. I am grateful to all the witnesses we heard this morning in the Science and Technology Committee, ably chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), but clearly we do not have enough data yet, particularly UK data, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) said. On case fatality rates, we heard that omicron is perhaps 29% milder than the original strain—that is from the South African data—and that in terms of length of stay in hospital, omicron stays are perhaps half the length of regular stays. Unfortunately, those are both linear variables. The R0 rate, on which omicron is truly outcompeting the other variants, is an exponential variable. That means that until it runs out of targets, it is going to keep doubling. We heard that there were 200,000 infections yesterday; that will be 400,000 in two or three days, and possibly 800,000 in a week’s time. We must not fool ourselves that we know how we can balance that exponential growth with the two linear measures we have found out about. We have to take a precautionary but balanced approach in the meantime.
I have sympathy—I really do—with the slippery slope argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) and those who say this is the thin end of the wedge. I share the view of many colleagues that the House must have its say over the next two weeks if we are to take further steps along that slope or to a thicker part of the wedge. I would not vote for the  thickest part of the wedge—I would never vote for mandatory vaccination of the general public, and I welcome the assurances we have heard from the Dispatch Box today—but that is not the question before us. We should all vote for or against these measures based on their content and our own personal belief in them.
On the so-called vaccine passports, I do not believe that they are anything of the sort. With lateral flow tests and recent experience of covid as alternatives, I do not think they should be described as vaccine passports; they should be described as covid passes. I welcome the assurance from the Dispatch Box that lateral flow tests will remain part of that in the future, and I will hold the Government to that.
Finally, on the point about rights and responsibilities of citizens that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) made so eloquently, there are 4 million people who have chosen not to be vaccinated so far. Some of them may be disorganised, but there are undoubtedly many out there who have chosen not to be vaccinated. I say to all of them: “I will stand up for your freedom and for your right not to be vaccinated, but you cannot imagine that there can be no consequences to that choice once that starts impacting the freedoms and rights of others.” I therefore think that some of the measures that my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) mentioned may have to be considered in the future if we get severe exponential growth of omicron.
In my last 10 seconds, I commend the Government for what they have done on boosters, and I urge everyone to go out and get their booster as soon as possible. That is the way out of this.

Greg Smith: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell). He was absolutely right in the way he concluded his speech: boosters are the answer to this. Boosters, and the vaccine programme at large, give us hope and a path out of covid and back to normal life.
I congratulate the Government on stepping up the booster programme and aiming to get those jabs into people’s arms by the end of the year. Making that happen will require a lot of focus and attention, and planning of the detail and the logistics. On the basis of my experience yesterday of trying to bring forward my own booster, which is booked for 31 December—I jumped from 7,000 in the queue to 3,000, then curiously to 10,000, before eventually being offered a date in mid-January—there is clearly a lot of work to be done to ensure that we can get those boosters into people’s arms.
I also welcome the Government’s move to get rid of the 10-day isolation period for anyone who happens to have come near someone who has tested positive for omicron, and to replace that with daily testing. That is a sensible measure. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), I feel vindicated in having voted against the 10-day isolation measure two weeks ago.
However, let me set out why I will not be voting for the extended mask mandate, for covid passes or for mandatory vaccination in the national health service.  I very much agree with my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), that this is a slippery slope. This is going to change the way we operate as a country, not just in December 2021 but whenever another variant—perhaps not of covid but of another virus—emerges. It is a fundamental change in the relationship between citizen and state, and one to be resisted.
I have argued throughout this pandemic—at times I have then reluctantly voted with the Government, as  I did last Christmas, and at other times, such as a couple of weeks ago, I have voted against extending measures—that all restrictions are not without harm in themselves. Even on masks, it may be an easy thing for many of us to do to put one on, but as others have mentioned, to the dementia patient petrified at the masked figure approaching them, to the child with autism, or to the person who is hard of hearing or deaf and cannot read our lips, it has consequences; it does bring harm. Likewise, I have been scared by reports in my constituency of the rise in mental health challenges, particularly among young people—there has been a rise in self-harm in secondary schools. We cannot stand idly by and just ignore that.
Of course, there is also the damage to our economy. We may not have shut hospitality down, or propose to do so, but I am already hearing from pubs right across my constituency that are losing 20%, 30% or 40%—in some cases 50%—of their Christmas bookings. People are now too scared to go out, and I am afraid that correlates directly with what the Government are saying and how they portray this virus. I took a lot of heart from the news coming out of South Africa this morning that people there were finding it to be a more mild variant and that the vaccines do work. I therefore come back to where I started: let us focus on the boosters and, otherwise, give people back their freedom to choose.

Derek Thomas: I want to believe that the new restrictions are motivated by the care and compassion felt by scientists and senior Government Ministers for the British public and to support the NHS. I heard the Secretary of State say that these measures will keep people safe and protect our liberties, but I am worried because that same care and compassion and support for the NHS does not seem to extend to other severe difficulties that our constituents face largely because of the Government’s having imposed restrictions to fight covid.
I wish to set out how some individuals are not safe and how their lives have been curtailed. For example, on cancer diagnosis and care, we are throwing everything we have at covid and the booster programme; how many more cancer patients will miss their diagnosis and treatment and lose their lives because we told them to protect the NHS? Surely, now is the time to reopen the Nightingale hospitals to deal with omicron and protect the NHS so that it can care for constituents who have had severe, life-changing or life-limiting illnesses.
Who is checking on the impact of measures such as those before us and the wider impact of covid on people with learning disabilities? When will we wake up to realise that these people are, in effect, locked up, safe from covid but living a miserable existence without their  usual social network and normal activity? My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) said that we are “scaring people witless” and he was absolutely right.
What about mental health and anxieties? Why do we feel that our robust response to covid justifies yet again plunging massive numbers of people into anxiety and mental health challenges, or maintaining them in that place?
On school disruption, how is it that for years we have made it an offence to miss school but we have now quite literally deprived children of a structured learning environment? With the renewed enthusiasm of the Government and Opposition, we already see schools closing early and children’s and families’ lives disrupted.
I accept that the measures we have been asked to vote on today do not in themselves trigger the problems that I have outlined, but the briefings and the encouragement of fear to justify these measures do not acknowledge the very real and horrible lived experience of people in each of our constituencies. We seem to have a Health and Social Care Department that is consumed by covid and has abandoned all other responsibilities, such as mental health, cancer, diabetes, social care, loneliness and isolation—a Department that is prepared to sack the NHS staff who care for patients.
I doubt that this new variant is the last. Are we to expect this level of rection indefinitely, with each covid threat? If not, perhaps now is the time to change our approach and have a fresh conversation about how we want to combat pandemics such as covid throughout the British Isles in 2022 and beyond. On that note, I shall vote in support of the booster jabs and testing, but against the other measures proposed today.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. To accommodate everybody, I am reducing the time limit to three minutes. I was able to warn the next speaker of that change.

Gareth Bacon: This has been a good debate but it is a profoundly frustrating and depressing experience to have to have it at all. Just a few short weeks ago, we thought we were almost out of the woods; now, we are threatened with the return of a terrible uncertainty.
Given the time restriction, I have to go through my speech at pace. On the proposals before us, we have been here before in respect of the extension of the need to wear face coverings. I do not like face coverings, but as a precautionary measure while we find out more about this new strain of the virus, I can see the argument for them and so I will not oppose them. Mandatory vaccination for NHS workers has been debated before and it is about a duty of care owed to the vulnerable people in the care of the NHS. It is an extension of an existing principle. Practising doctors have told me that they are already required to be inoculated against chicken pox, rubella, measles and hepatitis B. There are also exemptions in this statutory instrument for people who work in the NHS but have no face-to-face contact with patients. So, again, I will be supporting the measure. On self-isolation, I think it is self-explanatory why the response is proportionate and I will be supporting the measure.
The measure on entry to venues and events is the real elephant in the room; this is the one that gave me the most pause for thought. We already have to show our vaccine status when we travel overseas, but that is our choice. It is marginally inconvenient, but with appropriate prior preparation it is not any more than that. The application of that approach to moving around domestically is an altogether different thing. As originally conceived when plan B was drafted, it would seem that there would have been a requirement to show one’s vaccine status to get into anything, be it a bar, restaurant, café or whatever. That is very much like what exists in mainland Europe at the moment. For me, that would have been a step too far and I would not have supported it, but the Government have made a major concession. Not only have they limited the number of venues where one would have to use the pass in order to gain access, but they have allowed the provision of a lateral flow test result instead. That avoids the deeply divisive nature of having to show one’s vaccine status. On that basis, I am able to support this.
The Government measures will not be allowed to be simply rolled over interminably. If they want to extend them, they will have to bring them back to this House in January for approval. That is something else I approve of. We do not yet know the severity of the omicron variant, but we do know it is spreading rapidly. These measures will not stop omicron from spreading, but they are not designed to; they are designed to slow the spread. The Government need to use this time to obtain solid data and deepen our understanding on the risks posed by omicron. In the meantime, I will support these measures and encourage everybody to get their booster.

Anne Marie Morris: The heart of these regulations is all about slowing transmission and reducing demand on our limited NHS capacity, so there are two ends to this telescope. The first is about prevention and making sure that people do not get covid. The second is about making sure the capacity is there so that if they do get covid we can cure not just them, but other patients who have non-covid-related illnesses. These regulations are very focused on the prevention end of this telescope. Clearly, vaccination uptake is crucial, and the Government are to be commended on that, but this has to be a matter of choice. Given others’ contributions, the point has been well explained already. Mask wearing and covid passports have not been subject to the rigour of proper assessment. A proper analysis has not been undertaken here and I fear that they will do more harm than good to society taken as a whole. They generate fear in those who least need to be fearful, they increase mental health problems, and they reduce non-covid admissions and treatments.
However my real concern is that the Government have not focused sufficiently on the other end of the telescope. We have not looked adequately at what we do about the adequacy of our resources. Despite promises and numbers of new doctors and nurses coming forward, even the Government have admitted that that will not be enough to fill the huge number of vacancies we have. If we can reduce vaccine development from 10 years to 100 days, surely to goodness we must be able to find a way of undertaking a laser-like review of a patient journey to make a better and more efficient use of the limited resources we have—and, indeed, to increase them. I call on the Government before Christmas to put in place an  emergency resilience taskforce, which needs to have a laser-like focus on the capacity issue, which has not been fully addressed—frankly, it has hardly been addressed at all. We can work smart; there are very good brains within our health service. We see that when we look at what Sir Ara Darzi has done in the Accelerated Access Collaborative, with new drugs and “faster patients”, in a way never seen before, or at what our own Kate Bingham, the vaccine tsar, has done to do what was supposedly impossible. When this taskforce is created, and it must be before Christmas and it should be asked to report by the end of January, it must look at better use of emergency services. We must use the fire and police services better. It must look at proper triaging of accident and emergency arrivals, and better use of medical professionals. We are using the wrong people to do the wrong jobs. We must expedite training, look at whether some of our training takes too long, and use the Nightingales and other resources to deal with non-covid backlogs and convalescing to deal with the healthcare problem. Finally, if we cannot have covid passports, testing must be the right way forward in social care and health.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. We will get everybody in as long as Members do not take interventions—or if they do, they still stick to three minutes.

Nicholas Fletcher: I want to speak directly to all the points raised, very quickly.
Being able to take a test instead of self-isolation is a positive move. Nobody likes wearing a mask, but most can see the benefits of them so I am okay with that. After careful consideration, in my opinion NHS frontline staff should have the vaccine; they have a duty to do no harm, and while we know the virus can still spread, the chances are reduced. I have spoken with local health professionals and there is understandable concern from NHS employees who are pregnant so I ask that those members of staff are given the assurance they need from the Secretary of State and the chief medical officer that this vaccine is safe at whatever stage of their pregnancy. On the concern that many health professionals will leave the profession, I have been assured that would not be the case, at least in Doncaster, as most frontline workers have seen the devastating effect of covid and have been vaccinated.
Many Conservative colleagues are struggling with the idea of vaccine passports and I understand their concerns, but this not a vaccine passport; it is covid status certification. It allows negative lateral flow tests or proof of vaccination. It is also only for venues that carry higher risk, and I personally think it would be selfish for anyone not to take a test before attending a live event anyway. Many complain about long queues when boarding a plane, but who would want to get on a plane where there is no security? I feel that this is the same.
It is not as though people who have not had the vaccine are putting just themselves at risk. Those who are not vaccinated and who require hospitalisation when ill with covid are blocking beds and causing huge backlogs in elective care. Two thirds of patients in Doncaster  Royal Infirmary with covid are unvaccinated; that is just not fair on the person who has been waiting for a hip operation for 18 months or any other elective procedure. Preparing oneself for major surgery only for it to be cancelled because another bed has been taken by someone who is unvaccinated is hugely frustrating.
I will vote with the Government today but I ask that they do not take my vote for granted and that, if we see no real increase in hospitalisations, the legislation will expire on 26 January and they will not seek to extend it. Working from home is not being voted on today and is only guidance, but it will cause much disruption to small retail so I hope that the Government will keep a close eye on that.
Finally, I ask my constituents to understand that I am voting on these measures today not because I have been whipped to do so but because, after careful consideration and speaking to many local professionals, I believe this is the right thing to do.

Anthony Mangnall: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) and I thank him for his reassurance that the Whips have not pushed him in that direction.
The Government have done an extraordinary job over the last two years. Rolling out the vaccine so quickly has been an extraordinary achievement as is producing a booster programme in the way we have. There is a remarkable book by Adam Grant called “Think Again”—the title is perhaps apposite for the Government right now—which talks about how we persuade people to take vaccinations and it gives the two case studies of Canada and Germany, where people are not mandatorily required to get vaccinated or pushed in that direction but ways are found to persuade them. We would do well to follow the guidance to be found in that book.
I will vote against the masks measure in SI No. 1400 and support the self-isolation measure in SI No. 1415. In relation to the masks, the legislation is shoddy; it seems ill thought through if, as I said the other day, we can sing, eat or drink with a colleague but not have to go to work with them, and yet masks are introduced in the certain settings. A Government and their legislation have a responsibility to be good and comprehensive; that is not what this is doing.
When it comes to vaccine passports, I will not support them. As countless colleagues have said, there is little evidence to show that they work. I am sorry that no SNP Members are here, because the 70-page report produced by Nicola Sturgeon adds to that point. A very important point was made earlier about the lack of enforceability now that we have the lateral flow tests, because of this slightly dodgy deal that has been done with the Opposition to get their support. The scope for abuse and obfuscation on that is far too great.
When it comes to mandatory vaccinations, I cannot and will not support them. The problem I have with this is that the Government have yet to release the data on how many people have left care homes since we introduced that policy. We need to have the data to be able to review that, because if 60,000, 20,000 or 30,000 people in the NHS decide to walk out, how on earth will we have the capacity to support those who get infected? We need more information before we make those decisions.
Over the last two weeks, the ghost of Christmas past has appeared, and he brings with him fear and uncertainty. We cannot continue to flip-flop and change tack, nor should we be cherry-picking information from South Africa to support the Government’s agenda. I appreciate that the evidence coming out this morning shows that two Pfizer vaccinations do well and that the virus is milder, but we cannot continue to terrify people. I am staggered by the Government’s approach over the last two weeks, during which we have used fear to persuade people. I believe that no Government should ever use fear as a tool to try to persuade their citizens, and that it is what has happened. We must build up our resilience and reduce our restrictions.

Rosie Winterton: Order. We must move quickly on.

Richard Graham: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), although I will not, alas, agree with every word he has said. Let me start by celebrating some of the things that I think we can all agree on, such as the end of the red list for all 11 countries and the extension of the travel passes for all teenagers. I think many of us can agree that we need to release from quarantine immediately those who are still in quarantine in our country having come from those red list countries.
Today, we vote on four specific measures. First, we have a modest increase in mask wearing, which really can only be opposed by those who strongly oppose it on principle. Secondly, we have an end to the pingdemic of self-isolation in favour of lateral flow tests, which surely everybody can agree is a step forward. Thirdly, we will vote on having mandatory vaccination for NHS workers, which the NHS itself supports. Lastly comes the issue for debate, which I would say is a modest requirement for a lateral flow test to go to venues with more than 500 indoors and 4,000 outdoors. In my constituency, that amounts to Gloucester Rugby, Gloucester cathedral and the ATIK nightclub, and I believe that all of those will be quite capable of administering things effectively.
What is it that the libertarians, led by the eternal cavalier my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), most object to? I believe that they object in principle to new rules being introduced, and struggle slightly with the specifics of what is wrong with the proposals brought forward today. Let us be clear that there is no vaccine passport, nor is this Nazi Germany in any conceivable shape. They are scaremongering, for everybody accepts that the omicron variant rate of infection is moving fast. We cannot be sure how many with omicron will need to be hospitalised, so we cannot wait to do something until the Gloucester Royal and other hospitals are overflowing with people with covid and critical cancer operations have to be cancelled. I do not believe any Member would want to face the family of someone lost because a cancer operation had to be cancelled as a result of the hospital being clogged up with omicron variant covid sufferers.
Is everything perfect? No. I have three suggestions for the Minister and the Departments involved this evening. First, they need to reassure us on the provision of lateral flow tests. We must have them, otherwise people will not be able to get them and fulfil the requirements  of these rules. Secondly, we need to look again at the wording on the advisory recommendation that people should:
“Work from home if you can”.
I believe this should be, “Work from home if you wish”. Thirdly and most importantly, the impact assessment makes it clear that the central estimate is that 73,000 NHS workers out of 1.8 million do not want to be vaccinated, and we need to do more about that.

Richard Drax: Let me start by sympathising with the Prime Minister and those on the Front Bench. These are not easy matters, and I appreciate that decisions on restricting our freedoms are not taken lightly. However, I am an independent-minded Back Bencher and I would not be doing my job if I did not question Government policy and vote against it when I think it is wrong. I shall oppose the measure on the wearing of masks, vote for self-isolation, vote against what will be vaccine passports in all but name, and vote against mandating inoculation for NHS workers when lateral flow testing would retain much-needed staff.
Previous speakers have asked whether these further laws will be effective. Whether they are or not is not as much of an issue for me as how we as a nation want to live our lives. Do we want to fear more restrictions every time a new variant appears, as it will? No is my answer. Do we want to damage our economy and all within it every time a new variant appears? No is my answer. Is working from home when I can enter a packed pub the right approach? [Hon. Members: “No!”] No is my answer. Do we want to shut down schools and universities and further ruin young people’s lives? [Hon. Members: “No!”] No is the answer. Do we want to restrict people’s movement and tell them what they can and cannot do when there is no evidence to suggest this would work? [Hon. Members: “No!”] No is the answer. Do we want to see hundreds of thousands of NHS patients waiting, some in agony, because their operations have been delayed again? [Hon. Members: “No!”] No is the answer. Do we want to see the hospitality and retail sectors collapse because we keep instilling the fear of God into their customers? [Hon. Members: “No!”] No is the answer. Do we want to go on spending taxpayers’ money on this eye-watering and unaffordable scale? [Hon. Members: “No!”] No is the answer. Finally—my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) in front of me can now relax—do we want the state to give us back our lives and freedom? A monumental yes is the cry from many a heart.
I had hoped to hear the Secretary of State say at the Dispatch Box this afternoon something along the lines of, “Keep calm and carry on.” I had hoped that the Government would stop bringing in all these laws criminalising the people of England for breaking rules that it seems many cannot follow. This is not the way to win trust and confidence. The way forward is to advise, suggest, encourage and take people into the Government’s confidence. It is time to put fear to one side, put our shoulders back and get on with our lives.

Tim Loughton: It is difficult to follow Buttons, but I will try. Yesterday I was asked in an interview whether I was plotting to  revolt, and indeed I have seen my name on various lists of rebels today. Let me make it clear that I have not been plotting, I am not rebelling and I am certainly not revolting. What I am doing, in three minutes, is trying to scrutinise a really important piece of legislation affecting all our constituents—a duty that Labour Members seem to have completely abrogated by giving the Government a blank cheque here today. They have been here only in single figures for most of this debate.
What have we learned during this pandemic? We have learned that vaccines work and that they are our best defence. We have also learned that disproportionate measures have consequences. Closing schools has led to a tsunami of mental health implications for many of our children. We have also learned that when we are presented with evidence-lite and a shortage of data, some of the predicted outcomes do not happen. We have learned how brilliant the NHS is, but there have been consequences in the form of non-covid deaths as well. Covid is not the only killer. We have also learned the difference between modelling and forecasts. Modelling predicted more than 100,000 daily infections back in September, but it turned out to be nothing like that figure. Let us not confuse modelling with accurate forecasts and predictions. We have also learned about mission creep. Perhaps we saw that on Sunday. We are learning to manage risk and realising that we cannot eliminate it. Soon we are going to have the pi, rho, sigma and tau variants. We cannot head for the hills with knee-jerk emergency measures every time a new variant comes along.
To scrutinise these measures and to be prepared to vote against some of them is not to be ideological; it is to do our job. I am pragmatic. I am quite relaxed on masks. I have been wearing masks in shops and on public transport because I think that is a respectful thing to do. It gives assurance to people who are scared to come out, so I am not going to oppose that measure. The measures on self-isolation are of course progressive, but I will vote against covid passports, which are a key part of plan B. I appreciate that they are not vaccine passports, but that is the Government’s plan C, and that is what I fear. It is passport creep. We have already heard about passports for pubs and other venues. However much we want to get people vaccinated, we do not want a society where we ask for papers and deprive people of their liberty.
I will certainly vote against mandatory vaccinations for the NHS. It was crazy to do it for care workers, of whom we probably lost 40,000. There are 1.5 million people working in the national health service. It is wrong to mandate medical procedures, but it is pragmatically stupid when we will lose so many people who we need to help to fight the infection at the sharp end. I am afraid we will lose many more with that measure. We need to base our decisions on science, the holistic impact and what is proportionate and fair, and these measures are not.

Miriam Cates: I think most people understood that vaccination was the route back to normality. Despite the fact that 95% of adults in the UK now have antibodies—I accept that  there may be some reduction in the protection from antibodies, but there is certainly no evidence for any reduction in T-cell protection—we are being asked to impose more restrictions on lives and livelihoods.
I have looked in detail at the modelling done by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. We need to be clear that they are models, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, not forecasts or predictions. They are based on some pretty major assumptions, such as that omicron causes the same severity of disease as delta and that the length of hospital stay is the same. Those assumptions are becoming more out of date by the day. There is no known benefit to the measures that we are trying to implement, but there will be inevitable harms.
On working from home, we saw research last week that suggests that those working from home are 11 times more likely to experience domestic abuse. Masks sound innocuous in their own right, but they send a signal across society, including in schools, that people should panic and fear. We have already seen schools close today and say that they may not return in the new year. That 100,000 ghost children have not returned to schools since lockdown should be a warning to us of the unintended consequences of potentially small measures.
I cannot support vaccine passports. As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) said, they are discriminatory and segregate people. We have a proud tradition in this country of standing up for minority views, even when we do not agree with them. In the rush to get jabs in arms, we should not throw that tolerance and respect to the wind.
I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham about the mandatory vaccination of NHS staff. It is about not the ideology of whether people should be vaccinated but the pragmatic reality that we will lose tens of thousands of staff at a time when we can least afford it.
This is no longer really a debate about whether masks work or who should have a vaccine. It is about who we are and what kind of society we are creating for our children. Do we really care about the freedoms that we all took for granted before 2020? People roll their eyes when Conservatives and libertarians start talking about civil liberties and freedoms, but freedom is not an abstract ideology.
Freedom is what enables my constituents to see their family, comfort the dying, go to school and go to work. That is what freedom looks like. After 20 months in and out of restrictions, we have to accept that there has been a permanent change in the understanding of what liberty is in this country, which is why I cannot support these measures. I urge the Government to return to a society of freedom and responsibility. Our constituents deserve that and they will rise to the challenge.

Rosie Winterton: I call Bob Seely.

Bob Seely: Me? I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, I could not hear you over the appreciation for the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates).
I strongly support getting vaccinated. I had my booster jab two weeks ago. I thank all Islanders who are engaged in the vaccination process in my constituency. I congratulate the Government on an ambitious booster programme. When it comes to the vote tonight, I will accept and trust what they say on face masks and on the daily tests, which seem infinitely more sensible than locking people down in hotels. I will not support them on passports or mandatory jabs. Threatening the jobs of 73,000 NHS staff seems an odd way to support the NHS.
I want to raise a wider issue with those on the Front Bench, which has somewhat coloured my judgment. I have heard nothing to reassure me on the following points. I am fed up with dubious forecasts and ridiculous extrapolations the kind of which many hon. Members have talked about. Academics—I am not quoting myself—have talked about Imperial College London’s forecast being “hysterical”, “inflated”, “consistently over-confident”, “lurid”, “flawed” and “spectacularly wrong”. What do the Government have to say about the incredibly questionable extrapolations that they have used?
I am tired of all the leaks. It was leaked that omicron could kill 75,000. It could, but it may not. All these doomsday forecasts, leaked at critical moments, erode public trust.
Thirdly, we are told we have to follow the science. Of course we have to follow the science, but it is a misleading statement as science is shaped by the inputs and by the desired outcome. For example, we had 70 pages of evidence from Scotland on vaccine passports, but there was no evidence to support their value for uptake, so why are we introducing them? We are doing so because of the precautionary principle. That is not science.
One of the most disturbing things is the lack of context for the statistics that have been used. Was that to increase knowledge or to increase fear? My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said that between 500 and 1,000 people die each day in this country, and people die of flu all the time. It is about putting this information in context, and I fear that the result of too much of this has been to scare people, especially the old and now the young. They are petrified of covid without taking account of more genuine and potentially more damaging threats such as the appalling impact on education.
I will vote against the Government on two of the motions tonight, but my decision to do so has been coloured by the past 18 months of policy, which we need to improve.

Maria Miller: The health of the nation has united this House over the past 22 months, but what we know about the impact of covid on the health of the nation has now changed, which has led to this debate. We know that the physical impact of covid is only part of the story, that mental health is a significant consideration and that the impact of covid on our hospitals has to be considered alongside the impact of cancelling non-covid treatments, too. Many hon. Members have referred to the impact on children of being schooled at home, and there is the impact on many people of working at home, which is not without its risks.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care set out very clearly his case for the measures before the House. The new omicron variant  is more transmissible than the delta variant and, even if it has the same impact on our health as the delta variant, its high transmissibility means this new variant could have a more significant impact on the number of people who need urgent hospital treatment. Stopping the NHS being overwhelmed has been our objective from the start.
I commend the Government’s focus on ramping up the booster roll-out, which is a vital part of solving the problems we face, but these regulations are designed to take those actions a step further to help keep down transmission levels, which is why I support them. The nature of human activity means we will not have a perfect set of neat decisions. These regulations do what is possible, not what is perfect.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister, particularly on the importance of making sure we protect the education of our children. Will he provide an update to hon. Members next week on the number of hospitalisations, even if the House is not sitting? We cannot eliminate the risk of covid-19, but these time-limited measures will help to reduce the risks faced by our communities. If our NHS is overwhelmed, it will put at risk not only covid patients but anyone who needs emergency care through the winter months. We have to act with caution, which is why I will support these measures in totality. I commend the Government for putting the safety of the people we represent first, and I commend them for taking this approach.

Andrew Gwynne: This has been a passionate debate that has reflected the gravity of the situation. I sincerely thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their heartfelt contributions.
Since the start of the pandemic, Labour has been crystal clear: we will not play party politics with people’s lives, especially when it comes to something as grave as covid-19. The precautionary measures before us have been recommended by the chief medical officer and the chief scientific advisers and are based on scientific evidence. They are proportionate, necessary and will give us time to get people boosted and better understand the omicron variant.
We have always said that the Government should not have scrapped guidance on mask wearing, and we have repeatedly stressed the importance of allowing people the flexibility to work at home. These measures will help us to have a safer Christmas, as well as protecting our NHS from being totally overwhelmed by the new variant. We are also pleased that the Government have taken our advice and our suggestion to include an option to present a negative lateral flow test as an alternative to vaccination status; I am grateful to the Government for that, and for providing the necessary assurances that the restrictions will not impede any access to essential services.
We have always supported measures that have been necessary to keep people safe. We will not alter that approach, but nor will we pretend that we are in any way satisfied with the conduct of Government Members—the Prime Minister in particular—over the past few weeks. The Prime Minister has done irreparable damage to public trust and has thereby undermined vital public health messaging. We know that, when the country was  most in need and ordinary people were doing the decent thing and sticking to the rules, the Prime Minister and his tinsel-clad advisers were making a mockery of the British public.
Neither I nor other Labour Members will let the Prime Minister’s failure undermine necessary public health measures, however, because we know that the omicron variant is much more transmissible and that getting two doses of the vaccine seems less effective in tackling it. The booster jab provides an increase in protection, so it is essential that the boosters be rolled out and that all those who are yet to have their primary course come forward as soon as possible.
Throughout the pandemic, vaccination has proven to be the effective tool against the virus, and that remains the case. We have repeatedly called on the vaccines Minister —the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup)—to put a rocket under the booster roll-out, but we are concerned about the mixed messaging from the Government over the past few days. In his televised address on Sunday night, the Prime Minister said that people
“will have the chance to get their booster before the New Year.”
However, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care indicated in his statement yesterday that the aim instead is to “offer” the booster to every adult by the end of the month, meaning that delivery will wait until January or even February. When is it? Can the Minister clarify once and for all whether the Government are rowing back on the target set just two days ago?
We are concerned about the shambolic lack of tests available for people across the country. How do we expect fully vaccinated contacts of cases to take daily tests if they cannot get hold of any? What is more, the regulations requiring vaccination status or a negative lateral flow test for entry to certain venues come into force tomorrow. If people are unable to get a lateral flow test, we have a big problem—I hope the Minister will address that.
On vaccinations for NHS staff, our position is that we want everyone working in the NHS to take up the vaccine. The vaccine is safe and effective and we should focus on driving up vaccination rates through persuasion, education and support. Vaccination not only protects vulnerable patients, but will protect staff from severe disease. The Government must urgently meet the royal colleges, the NHS providers and the unions to agree a framework for how any changes agreed tonight will be rolled out.
Finally, I want to highlight where the Government are still falling short, in the hope that the Minister will take these points on board before it is too late. First, will the Government confirm that we will not waste the Christmas holidays, and ensure that all children who are eligible to be offered a vaccination before the end of this month will have one? Furthermore, will the Minister advise why, more than 19 months since SAGE first highlighted the crucial role of good ventilation, the Government are still failing to act on its advice? With these measures being laid before the House, the Government should also reconsider their position on sick pay provision; nobody should have to choose between feeding their family and doing the right thing by isolating.
I appreciate that no Government ever want to bring in measures such as these, and I fully appreciate the frustration of Members across the House and people across our country that we are here again, being forced to change our way of life to fight this virus, but I am afraid that the alternative is far more serious. If we do not take steps to protect the NHS, it will face a wave of infections that will likely overwhelm it. Labour opposes this Prime Minister and this Conservative Government, but we will support them on these measures because we support our NHS and we support the science; and when we are faced with a crisis, Labour will always put people and the health of the nation above party politics.

Steve Barclay: Throughout today’s debate, we have heard the sincere and heartfelt views of hon. and right hon. Members from across the House. I recognise the strength of feeling, and will turn to each of the statutory instruments for consideration before the House, but before I do, may I recognise the constructive approach taken by the Opposition Front Bench?
We are learning more about the omicron variant each day, but we already know that no variant of covid-19 has spread this quickly. It will become the dominant variant in London in the next 36 hours, and soon across the UK as a whole. It is right that we take a cautious approach to the arithmetic, alongside a strong communications campaign of the sort called for by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom).

Dawn Butler: Will the Minister give way?

Steve Barclay: In a moment.
There is much that we still do not know about this virus, as there is a wide range of opinions on its severity. Hospitalisations and deaths always lag infections by about two to four weeks. We are not at the topping-out point in South Africa, so we do not know what the peak will be, but even a small percentage of widespread transmission will be significant—a point rightly made by the Opposition Front Bench, and the Secretary of State when he opened the debate. This is not, as some suggest, solely an issue for the NHS. Widespread infection and staff absences would have a wider economic impact on areas from our supply chains to our factories.

Chris Bryant: The Secretary of State said earlier that he might be able to provide the House with an update on the issue of whether people who have come back from South Africa and are stuck in quarantine have to fulfil their whole quarantine. I have constituents from the Rhondda—rugby players—who are still stuck. They had already done 10 days of quarantine in South Africa; surely they can be released tomorrow.

Steve Barclay: I will come to that matter directly—not just because they are rugby players, but because it is an extremely important issue.

Chris Bryant: They are Welsh rugby players.

Steve Barclay: Indeed.

Dawn Butler: The Minister is absolutely right that we have to do all that we can to stop the spread of the omicron variant. I am sure that, like me, he is encouraging people to take the vaccine and the boosters. Parliament is a really large venue; about 3,000 people work here. Will the Minister confirm that everybody on his side of the House has been doubly vaccinated, and that a covid pass situation will be relevant to MPs, who will be huddled together—hundreds of us—voting today? What protections will MPs have to ensure that we are safe?

Steve Barclay: I am not sure whether the hon. Member has been in the Chamber for the whole debate, but throughout the day there has been consensus across the House on the importance of being vaccinated and of boosters; that has been a point of agreement. Obviously, the management of the House is a matter for Mr Speaker, not for me. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) correctly highlighted, he and our constituents will continue to be able to access all facilities, as before. I point out to the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) that it is still possible to go to nightclubs, just as it is possible to vote, and these measures will not prevent that.
As well as omicron’s transmissibility, we are also beginning to learn more about the effectiveness of our vaccines against it. Boosters were important before omicron, but they are now critical and, as of this evening, we have delivered 24 million across the United Kingdom. Boosters are, without question, the single most effective thing we can do and plan B buys us more time to get more boosters into more arms. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans), who, as a GP himself, highlighted the importance of addressing the 15-minute wait period to increase the flow of boosters—a decision that the chief medical officers across the UK have supported. I also concur with my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), who rightly highlighted that the second dose is important alongside the booster.
The early evidence suggests that a booster dose is extremely effective; analysis by the UK Health Security Agency shows that a booster dose is 70% to 75% effective at preventing symptomatic infection. That is particularly important given the speed at which this infection is spreading, which means that the increase will be sharper, and its impact more concentrated, over a shorter period of time.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) raised an issue. The Health Secretary flagged up in opening the debate that he intended to remove all 11 remaining countries from England’s red list as of 4 am tomorrow. The Health Secretary has urgently considered the issue of releasing people from managed quarantine before they have completed the 10-day isolation—a point also raised by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and a number of Members from across the House. The Government’s decision is that we should permit early release of those who went into managed quarantine before the changes to the red list and require them to follow the relevant rules as if they had arrived from a non-red list country. Anyone who has tested positive will need to continue to stay in managed quarantine. That will require changes to regulations. We will look to implement that as quickly as possible and we will set out further specific guidance for affected individuals imminently.
I turn now to the statutory instruments before the House. The weight of scientific evidence shows that face coverings can make a difference, even if, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said—he is a clinician himself—it is the least that we can do to wear these wretched things. Regulation 1400, which extends the use of face coverings, is a simple step to help slow the spread and I welcome the support of Members. Even those with concerns, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), said that they would not oppose such a measure.
It is vital that we draw on our testing capacity to keep Britain moving. Regulation 1415 enables close contacts of confirmed or suspected covid cases who are fully vaccinated to take lateral flow tests every day for seven days. In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), the lateral flow tests will be self-reported.
Regulation 1416 regarding entry to venues and events is one I know that hon. Members have given considerable attention. But this is very far from what has been described as a vaccine passport—a point that the Health Secretary made in opening the debate. This measure will mean that a negative lateral flow test is required to get into nightclubs and large events, with an exemption for the double vaccinated. Once all adults have had a reasonable chance to get their booster jab, we intend to change this exemption to require a booster.
Vaccination has been and remains our best line of defence. We have heard many contributions from across the House on making vaccination a condition of deployment for staff in health and wider social care settings. I recognise how emotive this issue is. Whether it is our care homes, our hospitals or other health settings, everyone working in health and social care is there to avoid preventable harm to the people for whom they care. As the chief medical officer has rightly said, people who are looking after other people who are vulnerable have a professional responsibility to get vaccinated, which was a point that another clinician—my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter)—made.
In closing, I am grateful for all the contributions today. The measures before us will help us to buy time and deliver boosters, which will provide the best protection against this variant. Vaccination, which was already so important before omicron, is now doubly important, especially in those settings with some of our most vulnerable people. I commend the regulations to the House.

Rosie Winterton: Order. To address the point raised by the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), in the event of Divisions, it is likely that there could be a large number of Members voting in one Lobby this evening, so Mr Speaker has agreed that 12 minutes should be allowed before I call for the doors to be locked. Members should accordingly be aware that they do not need to crowd into the Lobby at the beginning of the vote, as there will be more time to vote than usual.
6.30 pm
The Deputy Speaker put the Question (Order, this day).

The House divided: Ayes 441, Noes 41.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (SI, 2021, No. 1400), dated 9 December 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9 December, be approved.
The Deputy Speaker then put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time.
Resolved,
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) (No. 6) Regulations 2021 (SI, 2021, No. 1415), dated 13 December 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13 December, be approved.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Entry to Venues and Events) (England) Regulations 2021 (SI, 2021, No. 1416), dated 13 December 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13 December, be approved.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

The House divided: Ayes 369, Noes 126.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put,
That the draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) (No. 2) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 9 November, be approved.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

The House divided: Ayes 385, Noes 100.
Question accordingly agreed to.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Rosie Winterton: With the leave of the House, we will take motions 4 to 6 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union  (Electronic Communications)

That the draft Network and Information Systems (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 26 October, be approved.

Agriculture

That the draft Wine (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 23 November, be approved.

Road Traffic

That the draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 23 November, be approved.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)
Question agreed to.

Committees

Rosie Winterton: With the leave of the House, we will take motions 7 to 10 together.
Ordered.

International Development

That Brendan Clarke-Smith be discharged from the International Development Committee and Nigel Mills be added.

International Trade

That Craig Williams be discharged from the International Trade Committee and Mike Wood be added.

Treasury

That Felicity Buchan be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Kevin Hollinrake be added.

Women and Equalities

That Lee Anderson be discharged from the Women and Equalities Committee and Caroline Dinenage be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Selection Committee.)

Petition - Aston Fence School Speed Limit Extension

Alexander Stafford: Residents, teachers, parents and governors of Aston Fence Junior and Infant School in Rother Valley are concerned about road safety outside the school on a busy road that has a speed limit of 40 mph during the day. They and I have written to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council to call on it to take adequate steps to improve road safety. As yet, however, no action has been taken, and signs and patrols clearly do not work. What is needed, according to the school, is a permanent 20 mph speed limit with appropriate traffic calming measures installed to enforce it.
The petition, which was started by the pupils of Aston Fence School, has been signed by more than 325 people—almost double the number of students. The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call on the Government to urge Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council to extend the existing 20mph speeding restrictions around the school so that they are in force at all times, rather than just during peak school hours.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Rother Valley,
Declares that road safety measures must be strengthened and improved around Aston Fence School; and further that the existing 20mph speed limit, which is currently applicable during peak drop-off and pick-up hours in morning and afternoon, be in force at all times to protect pedestrians and drivers alike.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call on the Government to urge Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council to extend the existing 20mph speeding restrictions around the school so that they are in force at all times, rather than just during peak school hours.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002704]

Human Rights Day

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

Debbie Abrahams: Last Friday marked the UN’s Human Rights Day and the final day of the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. I am delighted to formally mark the day in the Chamber tonight.
As many hon. Members will know, Human Rights Day is observed annually on 10 December—the day when in 1948 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the universal declaration of human rights. The declaration is a milestone document that proclaims the inalienable rights to which every one of us, as a human being, is entitled regardless of
“race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”
Its central tenet, set out in article 1—
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”—
is as important today as when it was adopted just over 73 years ago.
I have a copy of the declaration in my office. I believe that its significance to humanity, having been adopted so shortly after world war two, must not be underestimated: it is the hope that we can be better than the horrors that we witnessed. However, although the declaration is recognised as part of customary international law, human rights abuses are still rife, even by countries that are signatories to the declaration.
The principles of equality and non-discrimination are at the heart of human rights, but we know that, across the world, including in the UK, the rights of women are constantly ignored. Our right to life is ignored: in some parts of the world, girl babies are seen as less important than boy babies. Our right to education is ignored: girls are still prevented from being educated, as we are seeing today in Afghanistan. Our right to marry whom we wish is ignored: forced marriage and female genital mutilation are still happening in the 21st century. So are our right to work in whatever job we wish, limited only by our abilities rather than by prejudice and discrimination; to be paid the same as a man doing the same work; and to be treated equally under the law and have domestic violence and rape recognised and responded to as the serious crimes that they are.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing the matter forward; I very much support what she is saying. Does she agree that the increase in domestic violence during lockdown has shown that, even in our great nation, there is an endemic of gender-based violence that must be addressed? One way to do that is through education at a young age, which she referred to, and through prosecution of domestic abuses to a much higher degree. In other words, we must be hard on those who are carrying out the violence.

Debbie Abrahams: I agree that the rise in domestic abuse during the pandemic is a real issue. Yes, I believe that we need further strict enforcement, but I also believe that we need to educate not just the victims, but the perpetrators. Two women a week in the UK will die at the hands of a partner or ex-partner; as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, that gender-based violence has increased during the covid pandemic.
In conflicts across the world, where violence against women, including sexual violence, is used as a weapon of war, we must reaffirm and re-emphasise that women’s rights are human rights by holding those who commit such atrocities—they are atrocities—to account. As the UN has stated:
“There are deep inter-connections between ending such blatant violations of those rights, providing freedom from fear, and the right to security, dignity, equality and justice.”
To mark the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women last month and the start of 16 days of activism against gender-based violence, I hosted a virtual event to look at those issues locally and internationally. I was joined by activists, experts, campaigners and people from across Oldham and Saddleworth to discuss not just the issues, but what we can do to tackle violence against women and girls.

Kate Griffiths: I thank the hon. Lady for calling this important debate. I personally have been overwhelmed by the number of supportive messages I have received over the weekend since my story became public. Every one of them has been encouraging, and many have shared their own harrowing stories with me. I know that every campaign, every debate and every story that becomes public gives strength and hope to other women, and perhaps the courage that they need to seek help. Does the hon. Lady agree that belief and support from others have a crucial role in addressing gender-based violence?

Debbie Abrahams: Absolutely. I want to place on record my gratitude for the intervention, but also how amazed I am by the hon. Lady’s strength and what she is doing.
I promised I would raise in this place the issues that the people at the virtual event raised with me. I hope that the Minister can respond to some of them tonight. Nationally, there remains a massive challenge. We need to change the culture of our society, which needs strong, determined leadership driving a multifaceted strategy that ultimately not just determines what are acceptable behaviours, but shifts attitudes and beliefs.

Nia Griffith: I congratulate my hon. Friend on this excellent debate. It is such a shame that, yet again, we have made so little progress. Does she agree that the revelations in recent days about even the police having WhatsApp groups with misogynistic content are shocking, that every single institution in our country needs to act hard and quickly to explain to people how dangerous and insidious that is and how attitudes can lead to acts of violence, and that we must stamp out such behaviour?

Debbie Abrahams: I could not agree more. There is an important point about leadership, which has to come from the top, and it has to be visible that such behaviour is totally unacceptable.
Women should be paid the same as men if they do the same or equivalent jobs. They should also be protected under the law from misogynistic hate speech, online and offline, in the same way that other groups with protected characteristics are. I hope that the Government will adopt the Law Commission’s recommendations on online hate—and it is online hate—as well as today’s report from the Joint Committee on the draft Online Safety Bill, which strengthens the provisions.
Boys and girls should be brought up believing that they are equal to each other. I go every week to primary schools in particular. We talk about girls not being able to access education and the children look at me as though to ask, “Why?” We need to develop that and ensure that it is not lost as those children grow up. Our society and our laws should reflect that. Fundamentally, our children need to understand what healthy relationships look like and that violence of any sort is unacceptable.
We need to build understanding of behaviours and attitudes that are abusive and unacceptable, so that women and girls, who are disproportionately the victims in gender-based violence, are empowered not to accept that.
There is a need for a national, co-ordinated approach to education and behaviour change, but at the moment, measures feel piecemeal and ad hoc. The matter needs a whole-system, public health approach.
I welcome the recent introduction of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. However, sustainable funding is really important and currently there is no guarantee that the money will run on to next year. It also does not address the societal and cultural issues I mentioned.
There are other issues, too. The duties under the Act are restricted to support for accommodation-based services, rather than thinking about the support offer as a whole, including community-based services. Voluntary sector organisations have consistently said that the scope of the duty is too narrow. Strengthening the accommodation and support offer is really valuable, but there is also a need to better support victims and their children in remaining safe in their own home, including, for example, through practical sanctuary measures. There is also insufficient investment in behaviour change work with individuals who have perpetrated domestic abuse, which is outside the Act’s scope of funding. Better support for children is also important. The pandemic has placed greater pressures on services, and a SafeLives survey of frontline domestic abuse services found that 42% said that they were not able to effectively support child victims at risk of domestic abuse at this time. When we think of that in the context of little Arthur, we see that that really is worrying.
Support for victims with no recourse to public funds remains an issue and can be a barrier for victims in escaping abuse. The domestic violence destitution concession allows victims to access financial support for three months while they make an application for indefinite leave to remain under the domestic violence rules, but that option is available only to those who have come to the UK on a spousal visa—it is not available to those who have come on student visas, for example. Local authorities also bear the cost in the interim period before the DVDC is agreed by the Home Office. In addition, a recurrent issue for services relates to victims of domestic abuse with complex needs, including mental health issues or substance misuse issues. In some cases, their vulnerabilities and difficulties in leaving an abusive relationship may also leave them at risk of having children removed. These victims have often experienced adverse childhood experiences themselves, which gives them a legacy of trauma. In such cases, victims may often have poor engagement with support services, but because they are often determined as having “capacity” to make their “own decisions”, not accepting help to leave an abusive relationship can be treated as an “informed choice”. Instead, we could have a recognition of the impact of  traumatic experiences on their ability to safeguard themselves. Developing the support offer for victims with complex needs is a key gap, and again I would be grateful if the Minister gave us her views on that. The Care Act 2014 does not accommodate this.
In Oldham, Keeping Our Girls Safe, a local charity, works with children and young people, supporting them to learn about unhealthy relationships, child sexual exploitation, grooming and other risks. I have seen its inspirational work and how it empowers these young people, giving them confidence, helping to improve their self-esteem and inspiring them to make positive life choices. It has just celebrated its 10-year anniversary. KOGS was set up to address the gaps in the statutory services available to young people, particularly on prevention and early intervention. KOGS works with young people in familiar environments such as schools and youth centres, which makes it more accessible. Over the pandemic, it has carried on working with young people. Its chief executive attended the virtual event that I held and I just want to pay tribute to her, because one of her friends had died a few weeks before and she came to the event. This friend had died at the hands of her ex-partner, and I just want to repeat Hayley’s powerful words about this. I hope I can manage this. She said:
“How many times will we look the other away
How many times will people ask why she stays
How many times will a word become a hand
How many times will we have to make a stand
How many times will we demand some action
How many times will we be shocked at their reaction
How many times will a child lose their mother
How many times will she be hurt by hands that are supposed to love her
How many times will excuses be made
How many times will the ultimate price be paid”.

Diana R. Johnson: This is an excellent debate and my hon. Friend is making a powerful case for the international Human Rights Day. Given those moving words that she just read out, will she pay tribute to the human rights defenders around the world and in the UK, including the lawyers who defend the rights of women all around the world? I chair the all-party group on human rights, and we are putting a lot of effort into making sure that human rights defenders get the attention they deserve, particularly women human rights defenders around the world.

Debbie Abrahams: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her timely intervention, and I could not agree with her more. This is something that I want to raise in a moment, particularly in the context of Afghanistan. I congratulate her on all the work she does in the all-party parliamentary group, and I hope that I will be joining it soon.
It is hard to follow those words, but I would appreciate the Minister’s response on the gaps in support for victims and also on the need for a public health approach with a greater focus on prevention.
Turning to human rights and women’s rights at a global level, we know that in far too many countries they are ignored. As chair of the all-party parliamentary  group for Kashmir, I have repeatedly raised my concerns regarding the human rights issues across Kashmir, which were documented most recently in 2019 by the United Nations Human Rights Office. The UN’s reports raised concerns about women’s rights and the reported use of gender-based violence in Jammu and Kashmir. Just in the last few weeks, a prominent human rights activist, Khurram Parvez, has been arrested by the Indian National Investigation Agency after he criticised Indian security forces for killing civilians and surreptitiously burying their bodies. I would appreciate a response from the Government on this issue. I raised it as soon as I became aware of it, but to date I have received no formal acknowledgement or information on the results of the Foreign Office’s investigations, and no response to my request to the Indian high commissioner.
The human rights abuses occurring in Kashmir may be the longest running, but that is by no means the only region where there are occurring. At my virtual event, we heard harrowing testimony about how sexual and gender-based violence is consistently used as a weapon of war with impunity. We heard from Christina Lamb, who has written widely on this, describing the testimonies of survivors she had interviewed from Syria to Myanmar to Nigeria. She said:
“The first time I realised the scale of rape as a weapon of war was when I was speaking to Yazidi girls who were kept as sex slaves by ISIS. One girl I spoke with was passed on 12 times between people as if she was a goat. One of the hardest stories I had ever heard was a 16-year-old girl who was kept as a sex slave by an ISIS judge and she told me the worst night of her life was when he came back with a 10-year-old girl and he raped the 10-year-old girl and she heard the girl crying for her mother all night. This should not be going on. This is a war crime, and these women need justice.”
Again, I would appreciate it if the Minister described what the Foreign Office is doing to get justice for these women, especially given the Foreign Secretary’s recent announcement of her campaign. The Minister will be aware that we have had years of words but little action, which is why perpetrators think they can rape and torture at will. Given that the Foreign Secretary has described this as a red line, what consequences are there from the UK Government for those countries that are not acting to tackle this?
The Minister will be aware of the plight of millions of Afghan women, many of whom are at serious risk of harm by the Taliban and to whom the UK has an obligation. The plight of Fatima Ahmadi, a former Afghan police officer, is just one such example. The Taliban beat her badly and pulled clumps of hair from her scalp in front of her nine-year-old son, who was also held at knifepoint. She has since fled to Pakistan but knows that her time there is also limited.

Jim Shannon: The right hon. Lady has a big heart, and perhaps that is the reason that we always come to support her debates. I commend her for her passion for her stories. Just today I applied to the Backbench Business Committee for a debate on the Afghan resettlement scheme, which will enable people from Afghanistan who need to move to another country to start a new life to come here. If she has the time, would she like to come to that debate in the new year?

Debbie Abrahams: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I would like that. I am just about to come to that subject. Given that it is now four months since the  Afghan resettlement scheme was announced and it still has not got off the ground, I would be grateful if the Minister told us what is going to happen. I share the deep concerns expressed by several speakers at my event about the devastating manner in which the Taliban have rolled back the rights of women and girls in virtually every area—education, paid employment, freedom of movement and so on.
In conclusion, ultimately the issues of human rights and freedoms should not be politicised: they are universal and should be seen as such across the globe. However, the wide gap between men’s and women’s rights continues to plague our society. The 16 Days of Activism for the elimination of violence against women or one Human Rights Day is not enough to untangle the challenges we face. It is time for strong leadership advocating concrete action to ensure that it happens.
On a global level, our co-operation with countries should be based on our common interests and our common values. Co-operation with regimes that do not value individual rights and freedoms, that do not have the necessary internal legitimacy, or that are part of extremist terrorist groups is detrimental to our progress. As such, human rights need to be at the heart of UK trade policies and deals. As one contributor to the event, who has recently escaped persecution, said:
“Humanitarian aid, the protection of the rights of women and children, and the handling of the humanitarian crisis, should not be sacrificed in a game of politics and individual interests. Regimes with such discriminatory politics and policies should be held accountable for their actions towards their people internally and externally.”

Vicky Ford: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for securing this debate and pay tribute to her outstanding work to tackle violence against women and girls, and to support survivors. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Kate Griffiths) for her bravery and wise words about the importance of support for survivors of domestic abuse.
I am privileged to lead our international efforts to eradicate gender-based violence, in partnership with Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, the Prime Minister’s special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth raised a specific situation in Kashmir and I will ensure that she gets a written answer.
As we all know, violence against women and girls is a global crisis and I will focus my response in the given time to the work we are doing internationally. One in three women will experience physical or sexual violence in their lives, at least 200 million girls and women alive today have undergone female genital mutilation, and child marriage affects one in five girls.
We know that this violence intensifies in conflict and humanitarian crisis. Around one in five refugees will experience sexual violence, and a UK-funded study in South Sudan found that one in three women had experienced conflict-related sexual violence, often many times over. Rates of domestic abuse were even higher, affecting up to 73% of women. Recent events in Tigray and Afghanistan have demonstrated yet again the urgent need to step up and tackle this problem. We also know  that marginalised groups are particularly at risk, including those who are LGBT+, living with a disability, or belong to minority ethnic or religious groups. Covid-19 has intensified this “shadow pandemic” of violence.
The UK is recognised for our leadership in tackling violence against women and girls and promoting women’s rights, but we must focus on what more we can do. That is why the Foreign Secretary has announced a major push to shatter the culture of impunity around sexual violence in conflict. We will explore all options to strengthen global action, including the possibility of a new international convention. Next year, we will also host a major global conference to unite the world around preventing this violence and advancing the wider women, peace and security agenda.
We are also serious about stepping up our investments. The Foreign Secretary has confirmed that we will restore our spending on women and girls to what it was before the official development assistance reductions. Last month, we also announced over £22 million of new funding, including £18 million to help end child marriage across 12 countries. Our work has already helped to avert 25 million child marriages over the last decade.
The UK is also recognised internationally for our flagship “what works to prevent violence against women and girls” programme, which demonstrated that projects in homes, schools and communities can halve violence, and that this does not have to take generations. For example, in the Democratic Republic of Congo a project with faith leaders and community groups halved the number of women experiencing violence at the hands of their partners. The evidence from “what works”, combined with collaboration at national and international level, has led to real policy shifts, for example influencing South Africa’s national strategic plan on gender-based violence and femicide. During the 16 Days of Activism, I launched a successor programme to scale-up the approach, backed by more than £67 million over the next seven years. That is the largest investment by any donor Government in preventing violence against women globally.
We can also be proud of our leadership on ending FGM by supporting change led from within the affected communities. We know that women and girls who experience sexual violence are at greater risk of unintended pregnancies, unsafe abortions, miscarriage and stillbirth, so alongside prevention, we are investing in counselling services as part of our support to sexual and reproductive health and rights.
There is so much going on across our country network, too. When I visited Sudan a couple of months ago, I met Mama Iqbal, a brave grandmother and community leader. She eradicated FGM in her community, with help from UK aid, and now she is taking on child marriage. In South Sudan, we are supporting the progression of a Bill through Parliament to reform legislation on gender-based violence and to tackle impunity. In Syria, the UK’s funding this year has helped to provide over 1 million Syrians with services to end child marriage and gender-based violence. In Iraq, the UK is one of the first donors to support the implementation of the Yazidi survivors law, a critical piece of legislation that provides reparations for Yazidi, Shabak, Christian and Turkmen women survivors of Daesh atrocities.
These global challenges need global action too, beyond what we can do nationally, so we are stepping up our international leadership. Throughout the G7 presidency,  we set a high bar. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth mentioned online violence against women and girls, and not only are we working on our own Online Safety Bill, but under the UK’s leadership of the G7, leaders agreed to the internet safety principles and to the London interior commitments, which are a specific set of principles for tackling online violence against women and girls. We also negotiated ambitious commitments on gender equality, including girls’ education, sexual and reproductive health and rights, women’s economic empowerment and violence against women.
We co-lead the Generation Equality action coalition on gender-based violence with partners from all over the world, including the Governments of Uruguay, Iceland and Kenya. During the 16 days of activism, I co-hosted an event with Kenya to encourage others to scale up evidence-based approaches, too. On 22 November, Lord Ahmad launched the call to action to ensure the rights and wellbeing of children born of sexual violence in conflict. This was an important first step in galvanising  international action for this group of vulnerable children and women. During his visit to Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh, Lord Ahmad met Rohingya survivors of sexual violence who have fled the persecution in Myanmar, and he heard directly from them about their needs.
Finally, on 15 November we laid the Command Paper to ratify the International Labour Organisation convention on the elimination of violence and harassment in the world of work. We are calling on and will continue to call on all countries to demonstrate their commitment to these values, and to ratify the new convention. All of this is just a small part of what the UK is doing as a leader in this very complex and deeply troubling area.
The UK continues to drive concerted action towards a world where no woman and no girl has to live in daily fear of violence—a world in which every woman and every girl can grow up safe, educated and free.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.